plotfi added a comment. In D60974#1477761 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1477761>, @jakehehrlich wrote:
> In D60974#1477690 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1477690>, @compnerd wrote: > > > @jakehehrlich - when do you expect to have your idea put up? I don't think > > that it is fair to have this wait until you have time to put something up > > that can be discussed. I think that getting this working and then > > iterating on it and migrating it over to some shared representation is > > something which we could do - that tends to be a common thing that I have > > seen happen multiple times with the necessary work never materialising. > > Re-use of the YAML structure means that we can iterate and identify the > > pieces that are necessary, though, I expect that largely, what will be > > needed is the name, the binding, the visibility, possibly the size (for > > TBEs), the section, and the type, at least for anything which adheres to > > the GABI. If you have extensions outside of GABI, this will need to be > > adjusted. > > > I don't know when but in the next 2 days likely. Regardless of my timeline I > don't think I'm blocking anyone. I'm just saying that I will put up a > proposal. You should also put up a proposal as well. The yaml2obj format is > just not well designed for any purpose but is far from designed for this > purpose. yaml2obj works ok-ish for testing. I'd rather start with a minimal > format and then add things to it rather than starting with a bloated and ill > designed format and then create a new format from that experience. Creating a > minimal format shouldn't be hard and I suspect our proposal will look > extremely similar; I'd wager if you put up a proposal I'd probably just > review your proposal rather than bother writing out my own. > > As for what I think it would entail. I think name, weather or not the symbol > is defined or undefined, visibility, size, alignment (this is a feature of > the section and the symbol offset) and type will all mater but not all > combinations make sense. Sections don't matter as it turns out but alignment > does for copy relocations. When we started llvm-elfabi I thought at least the > section permissions mattered but they don't really. While .tbe has things > like soname and dt_needed that isn't needed here. The top of the file should > probably contain the architecture. Other details in the ELF header shouldn't > be needed. Would you be ok with having yaml emission as a debug/testing format (not as the official format, which I will post in a proposal this week or early next)? I suppose whatever tool handles the format can convert it to yaml, but it could still be convenient for debugging. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
