From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cdaa3abe008a8f57 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Ada Type Information Date: 1999/03/08 Message-ID: <7c0rvn$7os$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 452589339 References: <36E03843.3AD74457@lmco.com> <7bpk2g$eun$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36E3D3A6.6BAFA0DC@lmco.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x6.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 08 15:56:45 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-03-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <36E3D3A6.6BAFA0DC@lmco.com>, Sam Carnicelli wrote: > dennison@telepath.com wrote: > > > > information, that could be a major problem. A new version of the compiler > > would be well within its rights to add or remove padding, and to completely > > shuffle the order of the fields. > > This is why I want to get the information from a product of the > compiler. If a new > compiler were to change the layout of the record type, I would simply > have to rerun my tool to get the new information. All of the methods I > have mentioned make use of products of the compiler. Typically the only part of a compilation environemnt that keeps this kind of information it the debugging support. We had a situation here where we basicly needed a mini-debugging capability in our simulator's Instructor Operator Station. So the engineers here reverse-engineered the debug information created by the compiler. That solution seemed quite dangerous to me, as a compiler vendor has every reason to believe they can change the format of that data at will (as long as they change their debuggers to match). But such a change would require us to redo the entire reverse-engineering process (or more likely, refuse to ever upgrade our compiler). In the end, they were convinced to not do this (at least on this program). But if you stick to GCC technology, there's probably some standard for the "-g" output. Perhaps there's even a document somewhere describing it for prospective debugger writers. This might be a reasonable option, assuming you are willing to keep up with any changes the gcc folks put in. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own