On Jul 15, 2012, at 1:24 AM, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:31:06PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure it has to be a choice, though - we could implement both,
>> resources permitting, of course. (And, of course, given that there are many
>> already-existing languages that describe protocols - ASN.1, {OSF
>> IDL/MIDL/PIDL} for DCE RPC, rpcgen for ONC RPC, CORBA IDL, xcb for X11 - we
>> will probably never have the One True Protocol Description Language.)
>
> I'd rather support one, and later have some compiler from language A to B.
Presumably by "one" you're referring to the choice between NPL and wsgd, given
that we already *have* translators to take ASN.1, PIDL, CORBA IDL, and xcb and
turn them into C dissectors.
> I was thinking to use LLVM. For built-in dissectors we could compile
> dissectors to object file/ assembly, for user dissectors we'll benefit from
> LLVM JIT.
> But anyway we need compiler to C. For prototype (does it work?) and later as
> fallback for people who don't have LLVM.
...or who are using processors not supported as LLVM targets:
http://www.llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html
> ... Or can LLVM libraries be strong dependency?
Not unless we drop support for OSes and instruction sets not currently
supported by LLVM.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
