llvm dev - Nov 2017 - elf2yaml document structure, for dynamic symbols

I'm adding support for elf dynamic symbols in yaml2obj/obj2yaml. I'm
seeking opinions about how to model dynamic symbols (and symbols in
general) in the yaml structure. Currently, symbols in elf are represented
by a top level `Symbols` key, within which symbols are grouped by binding
type (Global, Weak, Local). The simplest thing to do would be to mirror
this structure to a DynamicSymbols (or SymbolsDynamic). Is there other ways
people would like to see this structure represented? Saleem suggested
symbols be modeled more closely to the elf spec, and that the binding type
should be represented as an attribute on each symbol, not as a grouping.
For comparison, coff and macho both appear to represent the file format
more directly, without much (any?) added abstraction.

Short pseudo example of the current symbol structure:

    Symbols:
      Global:
        - Name: ...
          Type: ...
          Section: ...
          ...
      Weak:
        - Name: ...
          Type: ...
          Section: ...
          ...
      Local:
        - Name: ...
          Type: ...
          Section: ...
          ...

thanks,
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171101/36a903b8/attachment.html>

I don't have a strong opinion on this. yaml2obj was there when I joined to
the project, and we are not using it for ELF in lld to test lld's features
anyway, so I'm not really a user of the bool. But, I wonder why you want to
add the new feature to yaml2obj. Maybe, explaining your motivation would
help others understand your problem.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Dave Lee <davelee.com at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm adding support for elf dynamic symbols in yaml2obj/obj2yaml.
I'm
> seeking opinions about how to model dynamic symbols (and symbols in
> general) in the yaml structure. Currently, symbols in elf are represented
> by a top level `Symbols` key, within which symbols are grouped by binding
> type (Global, Weak, Local). The simplest thing to do would be to mirror
> this structure to a DynamicSymbols (or SymbolsDynamic). Is there other ways
> people would like to see this structure represented? Saleem suggested
> symbols be modeled more closely to the elf spec, and that the binding type
> should be represented as an attribute on each symbol, not as a grouping.
> For comparison, coff and macho both appear to represent the file format
> more directly, without much (any?) added abstraction.
>
> Short pseudo example of the current symbol structure:
>
>     Symbols:
>       Global:
>         - Name: ...
>           Type: ...
>           Section: ...
>           ...
>       Weak:
>         - Name: ...
>           Type: ...
>           Section: ...
>           ...
>       Local:
>         - Name: ...
>           Type: ...
>           Section: ...
>           ...
>
> thanks,
> Dave
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171101/1c5a16a2/attachment.html>

> I wonder why you want to add the new feature to yaml2obj. Maybe,
explaining your motivation would help others understand your problem.

Thanks for the cue! I am using yaml2obj to generate stub dynamic libraries.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion on this. yaml2obj was there when I joined
to
> the project, and we are not using it for ELF in lld to test lld's
features
> anyway, so I'm not really a user of the bool. But, I wonder why you
want to
> add the new feature to yaml2obj. Maybe, explaining your motivation would
> help others understand your problem.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Dave Lee <davelee.com at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> I'm adding support for elf dynamic symbols in yaml2obj/obj2yaml.
I'm
>> seeking opinions about how to model dynamic symbols (and symbols in
>> general) in the yaml structure. Currently, symbols in elf are
represented
>> by a top level `Symbols` key, within which symbols are grouped by
binding
>> type (Global, Weak, Local). The simplest thing to do would be to mirror
>> this structure to a DynamicSymbols (or SymbolsDynamic). Is there other
ways
>> people would like to see this structure represented? Saleem suggested
>> symbols be modeled more closely to the elf spec, and that the binding
type
>> should be represented as an attribute on each symbol, not as a
grouping.
>> For comparison, coff and macho both appear to represent the file format
>> more directly, without much (any?) added abstraction.
>>
>> Short pseudo example of the current symbol structure:
>>
>>     Symbols:
>>       Global:
>>         - Name: ...
>>           Type: ...
>>           Section: ...
>>           ...
>>       Weak:
>>         - Name: ...
>>           Type: ...
>>           Section: ...
>>           ...
>>       Local:
>>         - Name: ...
>>           Type: ...
>>           Section: ...
>>           ...
>>
>> thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171101/9e22c234/attachment.html>