On 05/11/2018 11:21 AM, Xiaozhu Meng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dyninst 10 is going to be released before July. The current master branch on
> the github is close to Dyninst 10 in terms of API.
>
> One of the remaining task before releasing Dyninst 10 is integrating parallel
> parsing. The main interface change caused by this task is changing
> InstructionAPI::Instruction objects from passing by shared pointers to
> passing by values.
>
> Right now, you have
> InstructionAPI::Instruction::Ptr insn = decoder.decode();
> printf("Instruction %s\n", insn->format().c_str());
>
> In Dyninst 10, you will have
>
> InstructionAPI::Instruction insn = decoder.decode();
> printf("Instruction %s\n", insn.format().c_str());
>
>
> Other than this interface breaking change, there could be new interface
> added. For example, there is a pull request of adding instrumentation snippet
> for xor. There should also be new interface for specifying the number of
> threads to use for parallel parsing.
>
> In summary, Dyninst 10 will be significantly different from its previous
> version internally, but the interface will be quite compatible excluding the
> Instruction part.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Xiaozhu
Hi,
There is a tool, libabigail, to check ABI compatibility issues:
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2014/10/23/comparing-abis-for-compatibility-with-libabigail-part-1/
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2014/10/28/comparing-abis-for-compatibility-libabigail-part-2/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_check_for_ABI_changes_with_abipkgdiff
Have there been checks of the dyninst shared libraries to make sure there are
not other changes in the ABI?
So with this change to InstructionAPI::Instruction objects one would need to
compile code either for the old or the new version of library? What was the
reason for changing to passing by value?
-Will
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Germán Llort <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am writing to inquire about the status of the next major release of
> Dyninst 10.
>
> We were planning to do a new development on top of Dyninst, but in the
> roadmap shown in the GitHub page we read that you were planning to
> introduce big changes and break compatibility with several APIs.
>
> If you could give us any update on the estimated release date, this would
> be
> helpful for us to decide whether it's worth to hold our development
> waiting for the latest version, or go ahead with the current one despite
> the upcoming changes.
>
> Best regards!
> -- G.
>
>
> http://bsc.es/disclaimer
> _______________________________________________
> Dyninst-api mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
> <https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dyninst-api mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
>
_______________________________________________
Dyninst-api mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
