From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18628 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2007 18:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18619 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2007 18:25:42 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_DW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:25:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6IPblV022097 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:25:37 -0500 Received: from pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (pobox-2.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6IPYP0023643; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:25:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-6-43.fab.redhat.com [10.33.6.43]) by pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6IPWxZ024102; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:25:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4730B19C.9080207@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:25:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sami Wagiaalla CC: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , frysk Subject: Re: elfutils use patterns in frysk References: <4730A923.4080100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4730A923.4080100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q4/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 Sami Wagiaalla wrote: > Hi Frank, > > A while back you asked about elfutils use patterns in Frysk. > I only know abut libdw* so everybody feel free to add to this: FWIW I believe the current code that is in the frysk-sys/lib/dwfl is based on a simple facade OOP pattern (as far as I can tell, I was not the original author of this code). So imo it should be noted that what we have are not, and should never be considered as a binding. For example there is no memory management, and there is a simple transactional contract that does not exist outside of each call. > > Okay so there are two types of items here: A third usage pattern is elf bindings for building corefiles, which are not dwfl based. These are fundamental bindings (ElfSection, ElfEHeader, ElfSectionHeader, ElfProgramHeader, ElfData) and so on.These are basically 1:1 mappings on the Gelf api. There is also some meta-code that deals with corefile note based bindings, but these are likely to be very specialized. I do not consider these as a first priority (or a second, or third) for Frank's work. I can't think who would use them other than Frysk and we already have custom code that deals with that. I know Petr uses these in some way as well. Maybe he can add more detail here. Regards Phil