Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:54:55 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] Update to clang 3.4 Message-ID: <6437A7D3-BB89-4FE6-B44F-46AE4E129F74@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <C72E6B85-C203-42F3-B27C-4B981A60460E@FreeBSD.org> References: <541C998A-071A-4917-9D91-DD00CB0E2689@FreeBSD.org> <CAJOYFBAf6rsZvNKgm5O-_rS%2BR5c=7939A3THNXanVSHVMnZcog@mail.gmail.com> <29C2D69E-9EC8-418D-A333-FC1A8DA2133B@FreeBSD.org> <C72E6B85-C203-42F3-B27C-4B981A60460E@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 7 Jan 2014, at 06:49, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 5 Jan 2014, at 05:00, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> I need some assistance with this, from somebody who knows exactly how >> CTF and DTrace work together. Our CTF tools use libdwarf in base, which >> is also quite old, and seems to be largely unmaintained. It does not >> seem to support anything beyond DWARF2. I think it would be worthwhile >> to upgrade this library from upstream ASAP. > > Our libdwarf was a from scratch implementation and we never used the LGPL libdwarf. I don't know if it's worth investing time upgrading our BSD licenced libdwarf or importing the LGPL libdwarf. Given the push to keep the tree mostly BSD licenced, I would say the former. LLVM now has fairly complete DRAWF4 parsing support. What interfaces do the ctf tools need, and are they the only consumers of libdwarf? Davidhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6437A7D3-BB89-4FE6-B44F-46AE4E129F74>