llvm dev - Mar 2018 - [cfe-dev] [GSOC 2018] Information gathering

Hi Eric,


On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>     >> I'm also interested in the command line replacements for
GNU
>     Binutils :
>     >>
>     >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ?
>     >> - Does this subject imply to add options/features to some of
the
>     >> tools, or is it only about handling command line ?
>     >
>
>
> I just replied with this in another thread:
>
> "It's currently still available. The basic idea is that we'd
be
> working on getting each of the llvm tools or libraries with a front 
> end that is command line compatible with the GNU binutils counterpart 
> to serve as a replacement. Whether or not we made them output 
> compatible is something else, but we'll probably want to have a couple 
> different modes there from:
>
> a) The compatible tool,
> b) The tool we all want.
>
> A and B could be the same, but then again, they might not. The low bar 
> for the SoC project is going to be A."
>
> And in priority order I'd probably want to finish off objcopy support 
> (see the recent thread on llvm-dev) and objdump/readobj/readelf and 
> then go from there.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -eric
I saw the thread you are talking about. So basically, the idea would be 
to do the correct calls for either COFF subset of functions of ELF ones 
wether we have a COFF or ELF file as an input.
Am I right ?

I am really interested in doing a proposal for this subject. What do you 
expect to be in it ? I was actually thinking of something like exposing 
the things I've done in LLVM/CLang, the schedule for the 3 months (but 
for this, I need to talk with you about the high priority tools, as I'm 
not sure it is possible to do all the frontend tools in such amount of 
time)..

Anyway, I am really happy that you answered my email. Hope to hear from 
you soon !

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180316/6e73eb20/attachment.html>

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:57 AM Paul Semel <semelpaul at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>> >> I'm also interested in the command line replacements for
GNU Binutils :
>> >>
>> >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ?
>> >> - Does this subject imply to add options/features to some of
the
>> >> tools, or is it only about handling command line ?
>> >
>>
>
> I just replied with this in another thread:
>
> "It's currently still available. The basic idea is that we'd
be working on
> getting each of the llvm tools or libraries with a front end that is
> command line compatible with the GNU binutils counterpart to serve as a
> replacement. Whether or not we made them output compatible is something
> else, but we'll probably want to have a couple different modes there
from:
>
> a) The compatible tool,
> b) The tool we all want.
>
> A and B could be the same, but then again, they might not. The low bar for
> the SoC project is going to be A."
>
> And in priority order I'd probably want to finish off objcopy support
(see
> the recent thread on llvm-dev) and objdump/readobj/readelf and then go from
> there.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -eric
>
>
> I saw the thread you are talking about. So basically, the idea would be to
> do the correct calls for either COFF subset of functions of ELF ones wether
> we have a COFF or ELF file as an input.
> Am I right ?
>
>
Basically what I'm looking for first is a command line equivalent
replacement first for gnu objcopy. I'd focus on ELF first, and then move to
COFF/PE. I'd start from the work that Jake (cc'd) has already done and
work
with Zach (cc'd) on the COFF stuff if he's still interested. Of course,
I'll be around for the first bit.

Then follow up with objcopy, etc as there's time.

> I am really interested in doing a proposal for this subject. What do you
> expect to be in it ? I was actually thinking of something like exposing the
> things I've done in LLVM/CLang, the schedule for the 3 months (but for
> this, I need to talk with you about the high priority tools, as I'm not
> sure it is possible to do all the frontend tools in such amount of time)..
>
Showing off your previous work is absolutely great in a proposal. A
timeline and some proof that you've at least looked at what's missing
and
have ideas at how to do the work would be key. And I don't really expect
you to finish all of them - at least not without help, but with some luck
there might be other contributors to help :)

Sound good? We can definitely work on the details as you're interested -
I'll also be more responsive in the near future as well.

Thanks!

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180320/431d3cf9/attachment.html>

Hi,

On 03/20/2018 06:05 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:57 AM Paul Semel <semelpaul at gmail.com 
> <mailto:semelpaul at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Eric,
> 
> 
>     On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>     Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>         >> I'm also interested in the command line
replacements for
>>         GNU Binutils :
>>         >>
>>         >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ?
>>         >> - Does this subject imply to add options/features to
some
>>         of the
>>         >> tools, or is it only about handling command line ?
>>         >
>>
>>
>>     I just replied with this in another thread:
>>
>>     "It's currently still available. The basic idea is that
we'd be
>>     working on getting each of the llvm tools or libraries with a
>>     front end that is command line compatible with the GNU binutils
>>     counterpart to serve as a replacement. Whether or not we made them
>>     output compatible is something else, but we'll probably want to
>>     have a couple different modes there from:
>>
>>     a) The compatible tool,
>>     b) The tool we all want.
>>
>>     A and B could be the same, but then again, they might not. The low
>>     bar for the SoC project is going to be A."
>>
>>     And in priority order I'd probably want to finish off objcopy
>>     support (see the recent thread on llvm-dev) and
>>     objdump/readobj/readelf and then go from there.
>>
>>     Thoughts?
>>
>>     -eric
> 
>     I saw the thread you are talking about. So basically, the idea would
>     be to do the correct calls for either COFF subset of functions of
>     ELF ones wether we have a COFF or ELF file as an input.
>     Am I right ?
> 
> 
> Basically what I'm looking for first is a command line equivalent 
> replacement first for gnu objcopy. I'd focus on ELF first, and then
move
> to COFF/PE. I'd start from the work that Jake (cc'd) has already
done
> and work with Zach (cc'd) on the COFF stuff if he's still
interested. Of
> course, I'll be around for the first bit.
> 
> Then follow up with objcopy, etc as there's time.
> 
I think you meant objdump, right ? (you talked about objcopy in your 
previous paragraph).
>     I am really interested in doing a proposal for this subject. What do
>     you expect to be in it ? I was actually thinking of something like
>     exposing the things I've done in LLVM/CLang, the schedule for the 3
>     months (but for this, I need to talk with you about the high
>     priority tools, as I'm not sure it is possible to do all the
>     frontend tools in such amount of time)..
> 
> 
> Showing off your previous work is absolutely great in a proposal. A 
> timeline and some proof that you've at least looked at what's
missing
> and have ideas at how to do the work would be key. And I don't really 
> expect you to finish all of them - at least not without help, but with 
> some luck there might be other contributors to help :)
> 
Alright, that sounds very good ! For the moment, what I've done is that 
I listed the tools that were needed command line replacements (for some 
of those it is really binign).

Do I need to take LLD into account in my timeline ?

Then, I investigated a bit on the different tools command line, and what 
I have learnt so far is that objdump and objcopy are the ones that 
require the biggest amount of work (again, not took LLD into account so 
far).
> Sound good? We can definitely work on the details as you're interested
-
> I'll also be more responsive in the near future as well.
> 
I have shared my draft in the GSOC 2018 Dashboard, but here is a link so 
that you have it right in the email[0]. I would really like to have 
feedback on it, espacially for the timeline I made. (but I'd really 
appreciate for the rest of the draft too 🙂).

I am actually not sure at all about the time it would take for the 
replacement of llvm-objcopy, so maybe Jake and/or Zach would have an 
idea about it, as they already worked on this subject ! 🙂
> Thanks!
> 
> -eric
Thanks,

-- 
Paul Semel

[0] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14gEdNv-X6p_a6Hsqvb1PmQcaXHateCct1yEhLEFb2-I