Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 4 May 2013 11:45:18 +0100
From:      David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Miscellaneous questions
Message-ID:  <C28A5826-8526-4A80-80AC-C0DFDC129E1D@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <518409F9.6030909@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CC4D1CB7-1F31-4B46-B0A8-91BBC4F7065A@furosys.com> <518391E2.5000002@FreeBSD.org> <518409F9.6030909@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 3 May 2013, at 20:03, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote:

> FWIW, The Solaris people have lived with the problem of supporting
> alternative linkers for a while and they came up with LD_ALTEXEC:
>=20
> =
http://blogs.everycity.co.uk/alasdair/2011/03/using-the-gnu-ld-linker-on-s=
olaris/
>=20
> There even appears to be a proof-of-concept patch for binutils:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D13863
>=20
> Again FWIW, one of our linker experts says the patch is ugly but I
> wouldn't spend time beautifying GNU ld anyways ;).

The patch itself isn't ugly.  The concept is, but it's probably sensible =
to support something like that.  I'm a bit hesitant about that exact =
solution, because I don't like the idea of a random environment variable =
being able to break (or fix) kernel / world / ports builds.

>>=20
>>> 4.) lldb status
>>>=20
>>> Is this described in detail anywhere?
>=20
> I heard good things about it from a Mac developer but I haven't tried
> it. We should look at it.

I've used LLDB on OS X, and it is a much nicer experience than gdb.  It =
does, however, currently lack thread and core dump support on FreeBSD.  =
We were hoping that Cherry Mathews would work on that, but he is doing =
Xen stuff instead.  If anyone else is interested, then we have a =
proposal that the FreeBSD Foundation has already agreed to fund that it =
would be great for someone else to pick up.  The proposal is for a bit =
more than just finishing the LLDB port, it also includes adding a =
less-ugly kernel API for debuggers, replacing ptrace (extending the =
process descriptors that were added for capsicum to allow process =
control, mmap()ing of a process's address space, and creating thread =
descriptors, avoiding some of the race conditions that ptrace has and =
providing a cleaner way of copying largish quantities of data to and =
from the debugged process and allowing lldb to run in capability mode).

> We should also start considering merging the elftoolchain.

I'm a bit hesitant about pulling in too much of their stuff, because =
we're going to end up with a lot of code duplication if we do.  Most of =
their utilities have LLVM equivalents, and we're already building all of =
the libraries that the LLVM tools depend on.  At BSDCan, I'd like to =
spend some time in the hacker lounge on the first day with anyone who is =
interested going through the source tree, looking at all of the GNU =
stuff that we have, and checking what the replacements are going to be.

David




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C28A5826-8526-4A80-80AC-C0DFDC129E1D>