llvm dev - Feb 2020 - compatibility with gnu binutils

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:15 AM James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at
my.bristol.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 00:24, Jon Chesterfield via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> This doesn't sound right. GNU binutils have a large quantity of
legacy
>> cruft, not least the redundancy between tools like readelf and objdump
>> which are capable of doing the same task in exchange for different
command
>> line arguments.
>>
>
>> Our from-scratch binutils suite has the opportunity to be much easier
to
>> use than GNU's tooling. Where was this policy, which sounds like
>> replicating their design mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and
documented?
>>
> Many tools (readelf, objdump, nm, objcopy etc) are used in many
people's
> build systems... principle is discussed on multiple reviews of changes for
> the tools too.
>
Thanks for your response. I read through the links but haven't gone looking
for diff reviews.

Yes, I see why people presently using gnu tools would want llvm tools with
corresponding names to behave identically. My concern is that meeting this
goal takes time from the very few binutils developers that could otherwise
be spent producing new binary manipulation tooling. Programmers wanting to
rewrite their binaries doesn't necessarily imply a determination to stick
with the GNU API - your example of generating json instead semi-arbitrarily
delimited text is a good example.

To be clear, if there is a bug in the GNU tool, we don't try to match
that.
> We've also made multiple extensions and improvements over what GNU does
in
> some tools, some of which were also adopted in the GNU equivalent
> afterwards.
>
Bugs vs features are a bit context dependent but I'm glad to hear dev
effort is also going on improving matters. I'm not in the binutils space
(as a dev or as a user) anymore so haven't been paying much attention to it.

> Note that there are some tools (llvm-readobj, llvm-symbolizer) which are
> not GNU compatible, and go their own way in output styles and command-line
> processing. These both have switches and tool aliases that allow them to be
> used in a GNU-like manner though too.
>
Taking it on faith that the llvm binutils are implemented as a relatively
thin layer on top of libraries, perhaps we should ship 'objdump' which
takes the same arguments as gnu objdump and does our best effort at
matching the semantics, and also ship llvm-objdump which is under no
obligation to match arguments or the precise semantics. Optionally as the
same file which checks the name it was invoked as. That would avoid a
proliferation of strip-all-gnu and similar.

Thanks,

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200206/98dee2ba/attachment.html>

> Where was this policy, which sounds like replicating their design
mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and documented?
James responded already, but just to add my perspective: on the subject of
llvm vs gnu binutils compatibility, I've heard everything in the range from
"let's do our own completely separate thing" to "let's be
byte-for-byte
compatible". The general consensus is closer towards the closer
compatibility side, so the happy medium we've tried to apply is "be gnu
compatible, except when it doesn't make sense" -- support for ancient
platforms, bugs, weird formatting, etc. We definitely take things on a case
by case basis, there's no firm policy that we replicate all the bugs.

And to be clear, this is only for tools with the same name as GNU tools. As
an example: we have llvm-readobj.cpp which prints things in an llvm way,
accepts llvm flags, etc.; and we have llvm-readelf (which is just a
symlink) that adds gnu-specific flag aliases, prints in a different mode,
etc. We don't change llvm-readobj format to match gnu compatibility,
generally speaking.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:55 AM Jon Chesterfield via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:15 AM James Henderson <
> jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 00:24, Jon Chesterfield via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This doesn't sound right. GNU binutils have a large quantity of
legacy
>>> cruft, not least the redundancy between tools like readelf and
objdump
>>> which are capable of doing the same task in exchange for different
command
>>> line arguments.
>>>
>>
>>> Our from-scratch binutils suite has the opportunity to be much
easier to
>>> use than GNU's tooling. Where was this policy, which sounds
like
>>> replicating their design mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and
documented?
>>>
>> Many tools (readelf, objdump, nm, objcopy etc) are used in many
people's
>> build systems... principle is discussed on multiple reviews of changes
for
>> the tools too.
>>
>
> Thanks for your response. I read through the links but haven't gone
> looking for diff reviews.
>
> Yes, I see why people presently using gnu tools would want llvm tools with
> corresponding names to behave identically. My concern is that meeting this
> goal takes time from the very few binutils developers that could otherwise
> be spent producing new binary manipulation tooling. Programmers wanting to
> rewrite their binaries doesn't necessarily imply a determination to
stick
> with the GNU API - your example of generating json instead semi-arbitrarily
> delimited text is a good example.
>
> To be clear, if there is a bug in the GNU tool, we don't try to match
>> that. We've also made multiple extensions and improvements over
what GNU
>> does in some tools, some of which were also adopted in the GNU
equivalent
>> afterwards.
>>
>
> Bugs vs features are a bit context dependent but I'm glad to hear dev
> effort is also going on improving matters. I'm not in the binutils
space
> (as a dev or as a user) anymore so haven't been paying much attention
to it.
>
>
>> Note that there are some tools (llvm-readobj, llvm-symbolizer) which
are
>> not GNU compatible, and go their own way in output styles and
command-line
>> processing. These both have switches and tool aliases that allow them
to be
>> used in a GNU-like manner though too.
>>
>
> Taking it on faith that the llvm binutils are implemented as a relatively
> thin layer on top of libraries,
>
I can confirm that they are all essentially wrappers around libObject
(except objcopy/strip, since it mutates) -- although not as thin as we'd
like them to be, sadly. Any work towards that is greatly appreciated.

>
perhaps we should ship 'objdump' which takes the same arguments as
gnu
> objdump and does our best effort at matching the semantics, and also ship
> llvm-objdump which is under no obligation to match arguments or the precise
> semantics. Optionally as the same file which checks the name it was invoked
> as. That would avoid a proliferation of strip-all-gnu and similar.
>
There may be some subtleties that prevent this. The tools actually inspect
the filename -- for instance, take a look at llvm-ar:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/tools/llvm-ar/llvm-ar.cpp#L1205
Based on the filename, the same tool might be dlltool, ranlib, lib, or ar.
There's no guarantee that the tool will be named exactly "ar" or
"llvm-ar"
in someone's toolchain -- it may be "${triple}-ar",
"llvm-ar-11",
"archiver", or whatever someone wants to use. We're already
playing games
with the filenames, I think playing further games is bound to raise too
many surprises/bugs.

I feel your pain with --strip-all-gnu though. Often the failures I see
there are what I'd call "EFS" (ELF filesystem) -- where, as part
of a build
process, a step will build an object, shove something in an elf section,
strip it, and be consumed later. Since llvm-strip is more aggressive (yay
smaller binaries), these sections get dropped. Fortunately, the
--keep-section, which originated in llvm-strip, was added to fix this and
also ported to GNU strip, so you can keep the same command line
irrespective of which toolchain you use.
> Aside from the above query, case sensitive asm doesn't sound like a
good
feature to me either.
FTR -- I don't have any opinion on this. But we do have the right to say
"that's weird, don't do that". Others more familiar with the
situation may
explain why it's not weird. [I didn't read the original thread]. As I
said
at the beginning, we should take these all on a case by case basis.


> Thanks,
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200206/eb97f4e6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4849 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200206/eb97f4e6/attachment.bin>

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:46:26AM -0800, Jordan Rupprecht via llvm-dev
wrote:
> > Where was this policy, which sounds like replicating their design
> mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and documented?
> James responded already, but just to add my perspective: on the subject of
> llvm vs gnu binutils compatibility, I've heard everything in the range
from
> "let's do our own completely separate thing" to
"let's be byte-for-byte
> compatible". The general consensus is closer towards the closer
> compatibility side, so the happy medium we've tried to apply is
"be gnu
> compatible, except when it doesn't make sense" -- support for
ancient
> platforms, bugs, weird formatting, etc. We definitely take things on a case
> by case basis, there's no firm policy that we replicate all the bugs.
So given that we got around with this for years, how much use do
non-lower case assembler pseudops actually see?

Joerg