Hello Norman,
I'm unsure if you addressed me by your questions but...
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:04:49AM +0100, Norman Feske wrote:
I wonder, should we consider adding a black list of known Genode symbols to the abi_symbols tool? This would make the tool a bit more convenient. On the other hand, it may foster the (wrong) expectation that the output of the tool *is* an ABI as is. In practice, the manual curing step is important. E.g., symbols of library-internal interfaces should be removed. This step needs a human brain.
When writing my response I also tended to propose to add those symbols to the tool but came to the same conclusion: The ABI ssymbols list is the equivalent of an ordinary linker version script which explicitly defines the exported symbols of dynamic libraries in traditional systems. Therefore, the human-brain intervention during the ABI creation should be at least emphasized if not enforced.
Given Guido's question, we should definitely enhance the documentation about using the abi_symbols tool. Since Guido referred to the porting guide, would that document be a suitable place?
You're right, adding extended documentation of the tool usage to the guide supports the goal mentioned above, but currently I'm somewhat occupied by other labors to improve the documentation myself. Maybe Guido could contribute some words based on his practical experiences?
Regards