This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill dot shutemov at linux dot intel dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, libc-help at sourceware dot org, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, devel at lists dot fedoraproject dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:37:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <8C6DA8A9-24E4-43DE-8BE9-4A2B3AAC6964@adacore.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAMe9rOpqhYKZWU5KyqCxkW8QRKVaMEpfHURNQsQuu2iKUg-O5A@mail.gmail.com>
> We have 2 different proposals for program properties. Mine:
> has a much smaller scope. New features on upcoming Intel platforms,
> like 5-level paging, need this extension for loader decision at run-time.
> How should we move forward with program property extensions?
I would like to combine the two approaches. Ie use your notes for
properties that need to be examined at run-time (specifically the
loader, although I imagine that the application itself might be
interested in reading its own notes). Plus use the note scheme I
am proposing for static analysis tools.
I am currently using a gcc plugin to generate the notes, and I think
that this should be extendable to generate your notes as well. (Using
a plugin is advantageous in that it is not tied to the latest gcc release.
It can be built to run with older gcc's, and it can be updated
independently of the gcc release cycle).
What do you think ?