(original) (raw)

The alias sounds good.

I think there has been a lot of scope creep in the various LLVM binary utilities. Originally, they were just knock-off, single-purpose, useful programs, but now users want command line compatibility and format-string compatible output. I don't have any strong objections against being more drop-in compatible, but I do want to point out that this is revisiting some pretty early design decisions, so it's not necessarily going to be easy.

Good luck! :)

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:15 AM Igor Kudrin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Hello everyone,

The latest efforts made "llvm-symbolizer" to behave very close to GNU's "addr2line" tool.
However, there are still some differences, which prevent it to be a drop-in replacement.
In particular:

\* "llvm-symbolizer" has "-I", "-f" and "-C" options ON by default;

\* "llvm-symbolizer" prints line and position while "addr2line" prints only a line.

\* "addr2line" allows more flexible usage of the "-e" option.
For example, "-fe " and "-e" command lines are handled smoothly.

We probably should not change the behavior of the existing tool, which might affect,
for example, parsers of its output. But what if we create another tool, say, "llvm-addr2line",
in the same way as "llvm-readelf" co-exists with "llvm-readobj"? That tool might
follow the behavior of "addr2line" better without risking to break compatibility
for current users of "llvm-symbolizer".

What do you think?

Best Regards,
Igor Kudrin
C++ Developer, Access Softek, Inc.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev