Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:54:42 -0700 From: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r350505 - in head: contrib/binutils/binutils/doc gnu/usr.bin/binutils/objdump Message-ID: <9A3E35C8-7CB9-4E5C-92F4-367715A9909E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2AxES0Sn29ELRHETQ-d3UvKSnskR8up_6_pV7cY9-iJkA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201908011442.x71Egfa9047254@repo.freebsd.org> <23d23900d06581050562951f5cf6a625235a059f.camel@freebsd.org> <CAPyFy2AxES0Sn29ELRHETQ-d3UvKSnskR8up_6_pV7cY9-iJkA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 19:58, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 12:35, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>=20 >> Why would we provide no objdump? I use it quite frequently; it seems >> like an essential part of the toolchain to me. >=20 > I don't want us to provide no objdump, but providing GNU objdump > 2.17.50 indefinitely is not a viable option; see PR 218387[1] for an > example of the kind of issue we have with providing obsolete software. >=20 > We have a choice of: > 1. provide llvm-objdump, and no /usr/bin/objdump in the base system > 2. install llvm-objdump as /usr/bin/objdump > 3. require that users who want an objdump install the binutils port >=20 > /usr/bin/objdump is not required by the base system build and not > required by most ports. exp-run details with no /usr/bin/objdump can > be found in PR 212319[2], and PR 229046[3] is a tracking PR for > removing dependencies on objdump. >=20 > Option 1 (removing /usr/bin/objdump) is proposed in review D7338[4] > while option 2 is (installing llvm-objdump as objdump) is proposed in > review D18307. llvm-objdump is roughly compatible with GNU objdump > (command line and output format) but there are a large number of small > issues that will likely trip up scripted or automated objdump use. > (Scripts should probably just use readelf instead, though.) D18307 has > a list of LLVM bug reports for known issues in llvm-objdump. >=20 > Note also that we currently provide only two or three obsolete > binutils, depending on the CPU architecture: > - as > - ld > - objdump >=20 > [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/218387 > [2] https://bugs.freebsd.org/212319 > [3] https://bugs.freebsd.org/229046 > [4] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7338 > [5] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18307 Thought: could this be modified in an iterative manner, like =E2=80=9Cobjdum= p=E2=80=9D -> =E2=80=9Cgobjdump=E2=80=9D / =E2=80=9Cllvm-objdump=E2=80=9D ->= =E2=80=9Cobjdump=E2=80=9D, etc (assuming llvm and gnu objdump are largely c= ompatible)? Thanks :)! -Enji=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9A3E35C8-7CB9-4E5C-92F4-367715A9909E>