[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Heads up for CDT-1.2 branch

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Songer [mailto:songer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:43 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Heads up for CDT-1.2 branch
[Build discussion snipped] 
> Seems like there are two ways to deal with this.
> The first is for managed builds. (This is what we do, though 
> not with the 
> current managed builder). If you are building the makefiles, 
> then you know 
> the toolchain you used to build with. That's the same 
> toolchain you objdump 
> with.

Well that is fine if you only have one binary in a project,
but if you have multiple binaries with totally different
toolchains then you are going to have to have some additional
flexibility available.
> The second is for user written makefile execution. Here I'd 
> think you read 
> in the first 1k buffer (or so) ahead of time and go to the different 
> extension points and let them say "yes" or "no". Give them 
> the buffer and 
> the file. I'm betting that 9 of 10 can figure it out from the 
> first buffer 
> which reduces the time from O(num_exes * num_types) to just 
> O(num_exes).

Again, I like this approach, but the back-end binding needs to
be such that you take into consideration the necessary support
required for matching up seperate binaries (perhaps with 
identical paths, perhaps with different paths, perhaps built
concurrently, perhaps build serially) to the toolchains.

Just to throw a totally different wrinkle on this ... there
should be support for projects which don't build at all, and
so the whole "toolchain" discussion may be seperate from the 
"binary parser" discussion, though you may consider the toolchain
as a user of the binary parser.

 Thomas ... just adding mud in the water.