On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:13 AM, pancake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I already know the LLVM project and looks pretty interesting for > boomerang. But looks like boomerang will enter into a highly unstable > development stage :/ I would rather prefer to have the segfaults and > library path issues fixed together with a release before doing the LLVM > integration which is pretty interesting but imho requires too much work, > and the project needs at least one stable release before this big > step :)
Sure, my intention is to make this whole LLVM work into a separate branch, as I think much of the code will be replaced. On the current code, the best I can do is fix crash bugs and implement a proper "make install" for boomerang. For anything else (e.g. add new features such as code slicing), I think the current code is too messy (IMHO). > Yes, I don't like C++ and the patches I provided where merely fixed the > problems I had while trying to use it and not receive segfaults. > > Finding segfaults in C++ is somewhat crazy and insane. I hope you can > sleep well after this work :) Yeah, what I'm currently doing is putting some debug messages inside constructors so I can track object addresses, but I'm sure there should be an easier way ;) > > Another problem that avoids the use of boomerang in a normal system is > the impossiblity to have it installed because it's always looking for > the libraries in ./lib/. Will be this fixed in cvs too? is there a > hidden SVN repository or it is just a legend? :) Actually, all development is now done in SVN for the last couple of months, see: http://sourceforge.net/svn/?group_id=48519 Regards, -- Anderson Lizardo _______________________________________________ radare mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nopcode.org/listinfo.cgi/radare-nopcode.org
