Well, all of the actual yamlization code in obj2yaml and yaml2obj is
library-ized, so you could always add the real code there, then have
core2yaml just link against it
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 5:11 AM Pavel Labath <pa...@labath.sk> wrote:

> On 05/03/2019 22:52, Zachary Turner wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev
> > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     I don't know much about the minidump format or code, but it sounds
> >     reasonable for me to have support for it in yaml2obj, which would be
> >     a sufficient motivation to have the code live there. As you mention
> >     in your footnote, MachO core files are already supported, and it
> >     sounds like ELF could reuse a bunch of existing code as well. So
> >     having everything in LLVM would give you even more symmetry. I also
> >     doubt anyone would mind having more fine grained yamlization, even
> >     if you cannot use it to reduce a test it's nicer to see structure
> >     than a binary blob (imho). Anyway, that's just my take, I guess this
> >     is more of a question for the LLVM mailing list.
> >
> > A lot of obj2yaml output is just "Section Name" / "Section Contents" and
> > then a long hex string consisting of the contents.  Since a core file is
> > an ELF file, this would already be supported for obj2yaml today (in
> > theory)
> Actually, even this is not true. An elf *core file* is an *elf file*,
> but it contains no sections. It contains "segments" instead. :P obj2yaml
> has absolutely no support for segments so if you try it to yamlize a
> core file, you will get an empty output.
> Interestingly, yaml2obj does contain some support for segments, but its
> extremely limited, and can only be used to create very simple
> "executable" files. Core files still cannot be represented there right
> now, as yaml2obj is still very section-centric.
> However, I do see the appeal in having a single tool for yamlization of
> various "object" file formats, so I am going to send an email to
> llvm-dev and see what the response is like there. I'd encourage anyone
> interested in this to voice your opinion there too.
> regards,
> pavel
lldb-dev mailing list

Reply via email to