Hey folks,
This is great to see more interest on the supporting tools like objdump and
such. I very much agree that bringing llvm-objdump up to feature parity (to
start with) compared to both otool(1) and objdump(1) is a great goal. The
default output formatting is easy enough to get right by having it be controlled
by the container format (otool style for macho, objdump style for ELF). Kevin’s
right that where this gets a bit interesting is command line option handling.
The prevailing wisdom from clang and lld so far seems to the alternatives Kevin
mentions of sniffing argv[0] and/or having a —flavor or —format option. IMO, for
now we can just do the latter, which is the simpler thing, while we get the real
functionality in place. Then when we’re ready to, optionally as packagers decide
to opt-in, use llvm-objdump to replace the system version, we can figure out the
right way to make that transition nice and clean.
-jim
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Kevin Enderby <enderby at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I’ve been trying to get the functionality of llvm-objdump to match that of
darwin’s otool(1). In adding the support for symbolic disassembly and to allow
testing of it on very large files that would allow the disassembly to diff
cleanly, I added a few options to llvm-objdump and to tool(1). For example
these would be the two command lines I would use for testing:
>
> llvm-objdump -d -m -no-show-raw-insn -full-leading-addr -print-imm-hex …
> otool -tV -U -no-show-raw-insn …
>
> Longest term I hope to see llvm-objdump take over all of darwin’s otool(1)
functionality. Not sure the best way of going this for command line options as
the trick of passing them differently based on argv[0] may not work. There may
need to be some wrapper to do that. And also their may need to be some option
like llvm-nm’s "-format XXX” to get the output to match so scrips can use
the output.
>
> I’ve Cc’ed Jim Grosbach as he may have some guidance on this.
>
> My thoughts,
> Kev
>
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Steve King <steve at metrokings.com>
wrote:
>
>> Hello LLVM,
>>
>> Previously, some folks wanted llvm-objdump to behave more like GNU
>> objdump. This could encompass both command line options and output
>> format. Such a change helps developers already familiar with GNU
>> tools and allows re-use of Perl scripts or other automation expecting
>> to see GNU style dumps.
>>
>> Is moving llvm-objdump toward GNU objdump the general preference? And
>> what about otools style output?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>