Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:56:10 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring GNU objdump 2.17.50 Message-ID: <20200109155610.GA23031@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2CJYYkcBRkajEf9miGUDBgpJ-DU3kGuJyHf5u%2BhjrF4uw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2CJYYkcBRkajEf9miGUDBgpJ-DU3kGuJyHf5u%2BhjrF4uw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:31:55AM -0500, Ed Maste wrote: > We currently install and use at most three tools from GNU binutils > 2.17.50, depending on target architecture: > > 1. as - assembler > 2. ld - linker > 3. objdump - diagnostic / information tool > > I hope to retire all use of these obsolete binutils before FreeBSD 13. > Here I'd like to discuss objdump. It is a diagnostic tool that > provides information about object files, binaries and libraries. It's > not required as a bootstrap tool (i.e., not needed to build FreeBSD > world or kernel). It is required to build a limited number of ports, > and is used by some developers. > > I have a tracking PR for GNU objdump's retirement open in PR 229046. > https://bugs.freebsd.org/229046. > > There are two ways we can proceed with its retirement: > > 1. Remove it without replacement. Ports that need objdump to build > will have to depend on the binutils package/port, and users who wish > to use it will have to install it. > > Related links for this path: > Ports exp-run: https://bugs.freebsd.org/212319 > Patch review: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7338 > > 2. Install llvm-objdump in its place (perhaps via a symlink). > llvm-objdump is broadly compatible in both command-line argument > parsing and output format, but there are many small differences and > it's not a full drop-in replacement. > > Related links for this path: > Patch review: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18307 > > I am interested in feedback on the preferred approach. Installing > llvm's objdump has the advantage that for most use cases everything > will "just work", but may also introduce subtle failures. IMO no. 1 is preferrable because we do not need to track differences, nor we need to explain them. Having to install binutils port is not a high cost, and if somebody needs details about binary at the level provided by objdump, including disassembler, she would need binutils port anyway.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200109155610.GA23031>