[llvm-dev] elf2yaml document structure, for dynamic symbols

[Dave Lee via llvm-dev]

> Can't you do that by generating a small assembly file and compile & link
it to a .so?

I could, though I admit I haven't consider that approach. Thanks for the
suggestion. If there is opposition to adding support for dynamic symbols,
then I will try the assembly+linker approach, but if I can add the support
for dynamic symbols, then I'll continue with yaml2obj, at least for now. We
also had a test case we wanted to write using obj2yaml but couldn't because
of the lack of dynamic symbols.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Dave Lee <davelee.com at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Can't you do that by generating a small assembly file and compile & link
> it to a .so?
>
>
>> 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/20171101/001e7c72/attachment.html>