Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
Jivin Mike Frysinger lays it down ... On Monday 06 July 2009 00:24:46 David McCullough wrote: Jivin Mike Frysinger lays it down ... On Wednesday 20 February 2008 19:22:38 David McCullough wrote: If someone wants to have a go at reducing the code size/complexity a bit (or not) and make sure the patch is up to date and only used for cygwin/windows builds, I will get it committed into the elf2flt repo on uclinux.org, promise :-) is this still your opinion David ? while i dont agree, if it's the only way to get merged, then i guess i'll have to do it. rather than tying it to a target environment, i would make it a configure option. something like: ./configure --enable-ld-elf2flt-binary the latest version is attached and has been tested with the different Blackfin tuples and Linux/mingw hosts. fixed a few more bugs to get this far ;). I was sort of hoping to run the two (script and C in parrallel for a while) but I am not sure if that will really do more than cause bit-rot in the non-default option. i'll be switching the Blackfin toolchain to the binary one, so there would be testing on both sides if you wanted to keep the uclinux.org side cautious for a little while. if no one complains, we flip the default configure option. if still no one complains, we drop it. Unless there is some strong support for dragging the process out, lets assume for now the 'C' version is the default and the script is a config option until we drop it down the track. Other thans Johns comments about 'C' not being ideal for scripting, which I agree, I am mostly ok. The only thought I had when all the perl compiler stuff was getting thrown around was to re-write it in TCL (Yeah I know), but the tinytcl library could easily be used to produce a binary tool to run the script, or, run it native of systems with tcl interpreters. tinytcl can produce native code from a tcl script ? or you mean the tinytcl executable itself is tiny ? No, but you can just encode the script into a small wrapper and invoke the interpreter on it that way. Pretty simple IIRC. So unless there are any more followups to this thread with better ideas or agreement/disagreement, I think it's time to merge it in. Give a day or so for and final feedback and I'll run with whatever is the latest patch i can split the patch up into smaller pieces if you like. atm it adds helper functions like fatal() to stubs.c and then converts elf2flt.c to use those (i found this useful after elf2flt produced the error output cannot open with no indication *which* program could not open). Your call on splitting it, might be better for others to follow. Actually, do that and I'll apply all those now, then we can at least tag the source prior to the C version coming in so if someone wants the old behaviour it's easy enough to checkout to a tag. i'm pretty sure this is the latest patch (taken from blackfin.u.o git), but i have to double check to make sure i dont have anything left on my laptop which i can do tomorrow. No prob, Cheers, Davidm -- David McCullough, david_mccullo...@securecomputing.com, Ph:+61 734352815 McAfee - SnapGear http://www.snapgear.comhttp://www.uCdot.org ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
RE: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
Quoth Mike Frysinger: On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 12 September 2006, Nathan Sidwell wrote: static void fatal (const char *, ...); static void fatal_perror (const char *, ...); are there really no libiberty funcs that do this ? looks like the binutils peeps are lazy and just re-implement these same set of functions in each set of packages rather than putting them into a library Are those similar to the standard err/errx/warn/warnx and friends from err.h? ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Gavin Lambert wrote: Quoth Mike Frysinger: On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 12 September 2006, Nathan Sidwell wrote: static void fatal (const char *, ...); static void fatal_perror (const char *, ...); are there really no libiberty funcs that do this ? looks like the binutils peeps are lazy and just re-implement these same set of functions in each set of packages rather than putting them into a library Are those similar to the standard err/errx/warn/warnx and friends from err.h? yes, but unfortunately err.h is a BSDism that glibc happened to pick up. using those would sort of defeat the purpose of this effort ... making it portable to systems such as Windows. although i could add stubs for the functions to stubs.c if the system C library doesnt support them ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 12 September 2006, Nathan Sidwell wrote: static void fatal (const char *, ...); static void fatal_perror (const char *, ...); are there really no libiberty funcs that do this ? looks like the binutils peeps are lazy and just re-implement these same set of functions in each set of packages rather than putting them into a library static void append_option (options_t *, const char *); static void append_options (options_t *, const options_t *); static void append_sed (sed_commands_t *, const char *, const char *); static void parse_args (int, char **); static int execute (const char *, const char *, const options_t *, ...); i think libiberty provides argv funcs to build/destroy which these functions duplicate ? the argv funcs provided by libiberty would require re-quoting pains create_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) delete_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) libiberty provides temp file functions so these shouldnt be needed using the libiberty ones wouldnt really gain us much we could split these lib type functions off into a sep object ... the fatal funcs for example could also get used by elf2flt.c/flthdr.c and make that a bit more tidy. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
On Tuesday 12 September 2006, Nathan Sidwell wrote: static void fatal (const char *, ...); static void fatal_perror (const char *, ...); are there really no libiberty funcs that do this ? static void append_option (options_t *, const char *); static void append_options (options_t *, const options_t *); static void append_sed (sed_commands_t *, const char *, const char *); static void parse_args (int, char **); static int execute (const char *, const char *, const options_t *, ...); i think libiberty provides argv funcs to build/destroy which these functions duplicate ? create_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) delete_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) libiberty provides temp file functions so these shouldnt be needed the output files dont get unlinked in case of error ... but i guess that's how the current script acts as well did you ever get a chance of posting this code in a public repo somewhere ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
Jivin Mike Frysinger lays it down ... On Tuesday 12 September 2006, Nathan Sidwell wrote: static void fatal (const char *, ...); static void fatal_perror (const char *, ...); are there really no libiberty funcs that do this ? static void append_option (options_t *, const char *); static void append_options (options_t *, const options_t *); static void append_sed (sed_commands_t *, const char *, const char *); static void parse_args (int, char **); static int execute (const char *, const char *, const options_t *, ...); i think libiberty provides argv funcs to build/destroy which these functions duplicate ? create_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) delete_tmp_file (const char **name_ptr) libiberty provides temp file functions so these shouldnt be needed the output files dont get unlinked in case of error ... but i guess that's how the current script acts as well did you ever get a chance of posting this code in a public repo somewhere ? I still have this sitting here waiting for more comment/feedback. The above sounds good, anything that reduces the siz eof the current 'C' implementation would be good. Last I looked the C version still seemed more complicated than I would have liked, but then this stuff is harder in 'C', thus the reason we have scripts ;-) As a crazy idea you could probably convert it to tcl, and on windows build it into an executable using a local copy of the tinytcl source. That way the script stays simple, and a script on unix, and on windows you can have a small standalone executable. Anyway, enough crazy talk. If someone wants to have a go at reducing the code size/complexity a bit (or not) and make sure the patch is up to date and only used for cygwin/windows builds, I will get it committed into the elf2flt repo on uclinux.org, promise :-) Cheers, Davidm -- David McCullough, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ph:+61 734352815 Secure Computing - SnapGear http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [Fwd: convert ld-elf2flt to C program]
On Friday 29 December 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 12 September 2006 18:46, David McCullough wrote: Jivin Mike Frysinger lays it down ... On Tuesday 12 September 2006 12:27, Nathan Sidwell wrote: I posted this patch and pinged it a few times, but to no avail. Is no one interested? iirc, we (the blackfin guys) looked over it and liked the direction this code is going ... but we arent the maintainers sooo ... ;) It's been sitting in my inbox, mostly waiting for some postitive feedback. i think I replied last week and said lets do it. I'll try and get it included this week, any such luck yet ? :) another ping ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
