|ELF and DWARF tools ? email@example.com (John R. Levine) (2014-12-29)|
|Re: ELF and DWARF tools ? firstname.lastname@example.org (=?UTF-8?B?QyBCZXJnc3Ryw7Zt?=) (2014-12-29)|
|Re: ELF and DWARF tools ? email@example.com (Hans Aberg) (2014-12-29)|
|Re: ELF and DWARF tools ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Walter Banks) (2014-12-29)|
|Re: ELF and DWARF tools ? email@example.com (Charles Chester) (2014-12-30)|
|Date:||Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:22:23 +0700|
|Posted-Date:||29 Dec 2014 11:59:09 EST|
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John R. Levine <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I am working on a project which involves building a compiler toolchain for
> yet another architecture. The obvious object format to use is ELF and
> DWARF, and I'm trying to figure out the least painful way to do that. ...
The llvm family of code is becoming more complete in terms of a full
GNU replacement. That isn't the land of python, but you're going to
have to go outside of that anyway for actual compiler/toolchain work.
(LLVM has a builtin DWARF parser)
I'm not a fan of llvm, but the codebase does have a "not bad" design
in terms of ease of portability. Assuming your arch isn't VLIW I
wouldn't expect too much hell.
If gcc isn't a forced requirement out of the gate maybe give it a go.
Side note: there's 2 "libdwarfs" floating around.. the one from SGI
and the BSD implementation, if licensing makes any difference.. I've
worked with the later
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.