Re: Latest version of dwarflint?

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi Djordje,

On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 18:07 +0200, Djordje Todorovic wrote:
> I have managed to integrate dwarflint on the top of elfutils-0.170
> release, so dwarflint and locstats can use all conveniences and
> improvements of the newest libdw library (such as 
> handling ops like DW_OP_GNU_entry_value).

Very nice.

> It is used internally by our compiler team. I have also managed to
> add some new enhancements for locstats, such as reporting summary
> either for formal parameter or local variable, 
> reporting some kind of verbose info about particular variable or
> formal parameter of particular function.
> But, beside these enhancements that were interested for our compiler
> team, dwarflint and locstats have a lot of good utilities that can be
> really useful to compiler developers. For 
> example, dwarflint tool can detect mistakes in debug sections such as
> debug info, debug line etc., and help compiler developers to get rid
> of those mistakes. Locstats can 
> apparently report useful summary and show progress of making better
> coverage for local variables or formal parameter in debug sections,
> so it can save a lot of time to compiler 
> developers.

Yes, I know some compiler hackers have found it useful. And I was a
little sad nobody had time to keep dwarflint up to date. It is really
great to hear you have.

> At least, maybe considering a making new branch called „dwarflint“ on
> elfuitls git repository, which follows the newest source code, would
> be good for the beginning, the same as it 
> was on elfutils-0.152? Because, getting more feedback from users,
> these tools would be better and more useful, so it can be, one day,
> merged on to master branch.
> 
> If you are interested, I can share my patches.

Yes please do share. I cannot promise to have a lot of time reviewing
the code. But I am certainly interested. Creating a public "dwarflint"
branch sounds like a good idea.

Could you take a look at the CONTRIBUTING file? We don't have to be
very formal for code not directly going onto master. But having at
least a Signed-off-by line on the patches makes sure we can eventually
integrate them officially.

Thanks,

Mark