On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:51:19 GMT, Robbin Ehn <r...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hi please consider. >> >> This works with 2.30, 2.34, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41 and current master head. >> (tested x64 and some RV) >> >> There are 4 changes in binutils we work around. >> - zstd compressed debug sections >> - libsframe added >> - init_disassemble_info() change >> - libbfd.a is only present in .lib directory in newer binutils builds (older >> it is in both directories) (I think the issue is that we never do make >> install, thus have dependency on internal artifact placement) >> >> Specific to RV, there is a bug in binutils causing the standard extensions >> not being added to disassembler if we pass in NULL. >> >> This no way near perfect, but at least we can build hsdis with any >> contemporary binutils. >> >> Todo better I think we need to build and install binutils to check the >> version and then use that version to figure out what options to use when >> re-building and re-installing binutils for hsdis. >> >> I asked tool-chain people about our issues, they said, you can't do that. >> I.e. have source dependencies on many binutils versions. >> >> As RV is new and have new instructions added to it frequently we really need >> to be able to build with bleeding-edge binutils. (capstone RV is not >> actively worked on, llvm have many more dependencies) > > Robbin Ehn has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Check API during conf make/autoconf/lib-hsdis.m4 line 266: > 264: AC_MSG_CHECKING([Checking binutils API]) > 265: if test -n "$BINUTILS_SRC"; then > 266: include_dis="#include \"$BINUTILS_SRC/include/dis-asm.h\"" All this quoting and duplication seems quite messy. Can't you just set e.g. `binutils_include_dir` to either `%BINUTILS_SRC/include` or `%BINUTILS_DIR/include`, and then just do AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include "$binutils_include_dir/dis-asm.h"], ... ? (Code written in github editor; warning for quoting mistakes etc) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15138#discussion_r1341201449
