Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:29:15 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring GNU objdump 2.17.50 Message-ID: <20200110232915.e6qzdyon47xifn74@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <20200109155610.GA23031@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAPyFy2CJYYkcBRkajEf9miGUDBgpJ-DU3kGuJyHf5u%2BhjrF4uw@mail.gmail.com> <20200109155610.GA23031@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--gpgjxs6c4y2qtjxr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 05:56:10PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > 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: > >=20 > > 1. as - assembler > > 2. ld - linker > > 3. objdump - diagnostic / information tool > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > I have a tracking PR for GNU objdump's retirement open in PR 229046. > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/229046. > >=20 > > There are two ways we can proceed with its retirement: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Related links for this path: > > Ports exp-run: https://bugs.freebsd.org/212319 > > Patch review: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7338 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Related links for this path: > > Patch review: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18307 > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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 c= ost, > and if somebody needs details about binary at the level provided by objdu= mp, > including disassembler, she would need binutils port anyway. I completly agree with kib here. Best regards, Bapt --gpgjxs6c4y2qtjxr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAl4ZCMkACgkQY4mL3PG3 Plrvqw//QYwhpdOz1tKWaqvy5SuuHJhZdSw+yXquOg96iGunrUArtnJzjy39GtZf NpcW5/VsAmGqjzLkmX/GO2kM9EYJgGtrrkZuNwHE9su+Q1euaIoKjVNmX0M7xc/u E9WRLSjzFLjEnUJWo3WqtZjvY/Zq2i/I3+qBOR9CgRfBe3F9kzf1TvS1xclqRpJR /i1DBAS81kfPrJ15gOA0aGBx13nIpJ+6kEwJRJjXRCCwaqWb6xtTsQGl2mSzTLo6 plukAGPZKKyV7dBplERTrv8q5nsXL1H3Z2tg5p6XPo86ILlWnzoIIBCplWhr8L0E 6FzEzm6SRYKYHsKGSEB3Lr/lTPp3C6ojlzkYK5fazlH9CFIieNdUk+lfpIhaoYZU o5/R86BIpz9W/o9IR7RqtJKNEZ2gQn3Bzw/9p3+1NJXi2C3d1ZU8Lf0nMsUx4lp6 DfbG8rj9FXoPQM/IWuEnzb+ct16tNSjia2wR6ZFm92BmOEJrN3lzYZyZX0ojOqtM To72JSutiPkqiFom19DzmU+bfA3tNpQZzGxO5t8ZW9GtYflRUg5t45Q2ueojxPOz Ps+/VqHanrjQ6b5ZLmhExmhc44ca87sY5c62FeryCCeRo9JTtCUh4AEK5e8hAPwn XnVmcNSOsqThpyjKZ2H038Bjzrc8ZnCeUiB893XJztrKpW80PSI= =32T/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gpgjxs6c4y2qtjxr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200110232915.e6qzdyon47xifn74>