|
From: Robert W. <rj...@du...> - 2007-04-03 23:54:16
|
Julian Seward wrote: > On Tuesday 03 April 2007 23:17, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dave MacLachlan wrote: >> >>> Greg Parker contacted me, and it sounds like he's far farther along. >>> I'm not going to bother going any further until I see how far he's >>> gotten. >> It's crazy to have three people working independently on this. It's also >> crazy to have people willing to help but not able to because they're waiting >> on others. > > I agree. It would help to have some details on the state of Greg's > (and/or Dave's and/or Robert's) port: > > * what code line is it based on (3.2.X or the trunk) ? I've been working against the trunk, and am up-to-date as of a few minutes ago :-) > * what's the status of its getting-started mechanism? Is that > robust? Can you outline how it works? I'm currently trying to get read_procselfmaps working by pulling information out using vm_region_recurse64 and the procinfo system call. Calling into Mach is going to be ugly. > * what's the status of its address space manager (m_aspacemgr), > one of the most difficult parts of making ports work? Other than read_procselfmaps, nothing done here yet. > * what's the status of its debuginfo reader (m_debuginfo) ? Ditto. > * what kinds of programs run? which don't? Ha! > * how well does it work in the presence of signals and threads? This is going to be interesting: doesn't Mach pull all sorts of tricks creating threads behind your back and injecting them into your code? > * does memcheck work? if yes, can you run large programs without > getting lots of false errors? See 'Ha!' response above. > * what other changes are necessary? Tonight, I'll generate a diff, tease it apart and post a link. If Greg and Dave could do something similar, that'd be a great place to start. Regards, Robert. |