On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 09:14:03PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Omar, > > On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 14:02 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > I imagine that little by little, most of the libebl functionality could > > be converted in this way, and that's how we could chip away at the size > > increase of the elfutils binaries. > > > > Do you have any objections to patches 1-4 of my submission [2]? > > > > Thanks for the timely response! > > > > 1: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q3/msg00022.html > > 2: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q3/msg00020.html > > I am still pondering this a little. But I do think (patches 1-4) is the > (first) step forward. But I think I would like to do a 0.177 release > with the last 4 months of fixes first. We normally do a release every > 3-4 months, so it is about time, and it means your feature wouldn't > have to wait that long. Although it would be a couple of months before > it sees a release. But I think it would be good to have some time to > make sure the idea works out in practice. > > So I would propose a release end of this week/start of next week. But > without the libebl build rewrite. > > For the release there are then still 3 things pending: > > - The eu-elfclassify tool > https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00018.html > I had hoped on some feedback from the rpm hackers, since they are > one if the intended users. And there are some (small) missing > features and tests. Lets see where we are end if the week to see > whether we can include that, or also postpone it to the next release. > - The C-SKY backend: > https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00007.html > This is really just blocked on me not making enough time for a > final review. It looks good, but I am confused about one aspect > of the DWARF register numbering issue. > - The dwelf_elf_e_machine_string patch: > https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00130.html > I didn't see any objections, so I think this is good to go. > > Then after the release, somewhere next week, we'll apply your patches > first and can then deal with any fallout and followups. I am thinking > of moving some of the functionality into libdw proper (as cleaned up, > exported api) to reduce the size increase a little. And add a mechanism > for only building some of the backends (or maybe just drop some old > ones that nobody uses anyway).
This works for me, thanks! I'll keep an eye out for any followups, and I'm happy to help clean things up on the ebl side.
