[lsb-discuss] unoffficial LSB conference call minutes for 24 Apr 2013

Denis Silakov dsilakov at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 12:13:04 UTC 2013

On 04/25/2013 02:42 AM, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>> The second part of data is 'nice to have', but not obligatory. Imho,
>> during uplift for 5.0, it's ok to not go beyond the set of symbols.
>> Especially keeping in mind that populating db with class-related data is
>> not easy, we currently don't have a tool to automate this task and we
>> are very limited in resources.
>> So my suggestion is to just add new symbols and leave vtables for better
>> times.
> ...with the added observation that I've poked at the problem of
> automated tools a little, with what look like encouraging results.  As I
> understand it, the biggest problem with C++ tools is that C++ is hugely
> difficult to parse.
Yes, this is the core problem. We have analyzers which are good enough 
to prepare data to be displayed in Navigator, but that data is not 
enough to generate headers.

>   Other tools for things like refactoring have had
> success with the Elkhound/ELSA parser doing some pretty complex stuff,
> so that might be an avenue of attack.
Yes, this can be interesting.

Btw, there is another aspect of the problem - ideally, we should not 
only parse the headers, but drop those parts of them which cannot be 
used in LSB-compatible applications. This task is quite complex in case 
of C++.


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list