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

[Paul Semel via cfe-dev]

Hi,

On 03/20/2018 03:06 PM, Paul Semel wrote:
> 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,
> 

I am really sorry to go for it again, but I would really appreciate to 
have feedbacks on my Timeline 🙂

Here is the link to the proposal : 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14gEdNv-X6p_a6Hsqvb1PmQcaXHateCct1yEhLEFb2-I/edit#heading=h.glzr12mhpfei

Thanks,

-- 
Paul