| 1 |
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 09:58 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17-07-2009 09:01:14 +0200, Markus Duft wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:43 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Hi Markus, |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
> If the windows stuff will use another format, then I don't understand |
| 7 |
> the decision to call it ITX instead of PECOFF. How about writing a |
| 8 |
> scan{elf,macho} brother that does the job? e.g. scanpecoff and/or |
| 9 |
> scandll? |
| 10 |
> That way we don't need objdump at all, but use our own tool, that we use |
| 11 |
> furteron on the process as well, reducing your work to parse the |
| 12 |
> output of objdump in the bash code. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For Winnt, i have to make parity.inspector (which already reads such dll |
| 15 |
imformation) print out all i need. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For Interix, i can't read the info myself. only microsoft knows where |
| 18 |
the info is stored, and in which format - so ATM only M$ patched |
| 19 |
objdumps will output the required info. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Winnt and Interix share the container "PECOFF" but need to be handled |
| 22 |
completely different. i could however - as you said - write a wrapper |
| 23 |
which decides which input file it got (interix .so, or windows .dll), |
| 24 |
and wether i need to call objdump or whatever else to get my info. that |
| 25 |
wrapper ("scanpecoff"?) could also output all the info already in the |
| 26 |
right format, so that the shell/python code would have an easy time with |
| 27 |
parsing :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Cheers, Markus |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > Anything too hackish to make it into portage? ;) i guess it's the most |
| 33 |
> > clean way i can think of ATM... |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
Archives