Update README for dune-built CodeHawk #221
Conversation
brk
force-pushed
the
standardize-on-dune
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0063960 to
42898b4
Compare
chb/util/Config.py
Outdated
| elif self.platform == "macOS": | ||
| self.macOSdir = os.path.join(self.binariesdir, "macOS") | ||
| self.chx86_analyze = os.path.join(self.macOSdir, "chx86_analyze") | ||
| if self.codehawkdir is None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i have to concerns with this:
- it looks like it will break existing users (me for sure, but external people could be affected too?) plus the containers we generate
- i'm generally against code guessing things? it tends to be fragile and require gnarly code.
if your goal is to make it more straightforward then i would advocate for:
- keep existing set up as default to avoid breaking people (it's probably okay to stop advertising it as a supported configuration though if you dislike it and henny agrees with you :-).
- if binaries are not in the old default place, and there's no local config, assume it will be in the $PATH? I'll admit that this step is not great as there's no trivial way to check if the binaries are there, but it is a standard process for installing software (at least in linux 🤷 )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused -- I thought, from the meeting earlier this week, that this implementation would match the way that you and Henny use CH/CHB/CHC. I must have misunderstood!
I'd be fine using a $PATH based approach. The main question there would be whether we check for the old binary names or the new ones. From my limited understanding of Dune the (only?) way to get the binaries built under the old names (public_name in Dune terminology) is to use the exes.install target for dune build, which is less flexible than the non-installation approach discussed here, because exes.install installs all the executables, whereas dune build CHB allows for more focused rebuilding, avoiding building things you know you won't use even if Dune considers them to be out of date.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused -- I thought, from the meeting earlier this week, that this implementation would match the way that you and Henny use CH/CHB/CHC. I must have misunderstood!
Sorry! Henny uses ConfigLocal.py, I copy the binaries out of the ocaml build folder into where the python frontends expect them to be #hard-customers
I'd be fine using a $PATH based approach. The main question there would be whether we check for the old binary names or the new ones
ugh, i forgot about this. I have the monday brain and thus no useful solution to propose. Let's talk about it with Henny tomorrow?
README.md
Outdated
| (or ConfigLocal.py) in `chb/util/` to its location. You can check the configuration | ||
| with | ||
|
|
||
| If this repository is placed within, or next to, the `codehawk` checkout, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it really okay/wise to do a git checkout of a repo inside of another repo? #asking-for-a-friend :-P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are several downsides to doing it, yeah. But, again, I thought it was what you and Henny are doing!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha, i don't think either one of us is doing that :-P
chb/util/Config.py
Outdated
| self.chx86_analyze = os.path.join(self.codehawkdir, "CodeHawk", | ||
| "_build", "default", "CHB", "bchcmdline", "bCHXBinaryAnalyzer.exe") | ||
| else: | ||
| self.cparser = "<no codehawkdir!>" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this what chkx info will print?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
$ chkx info
Analyzer configuration:
-----------------------
analyzer : /home/ben/codehawk/CodeHawk/_build/default/CHB/bchcmdline/bCHXBinaryAnalyzer.exe (found)
summaries: /home/ben/CodeHawk-Binary/chb/summaries/bchsummaries.jar (found)
$ mv ../codehawk ../invisiblecodehawk
$ chkx info
Analyzer configuration:
-----------------------
analyzer : <no codehawkdir!> (not found)
summaries: /home/ben/CodeHawk-Binary/chb/summaries/bchsummaries.jar (found)
chb/util/Config.py
Outdated
| if self.codehawkdir is not None: | ||
| # Look for non-installed binaries by default | ||
| self.cparser = os.path.join(self.codehawkdir, "CodeHawk", | ||
| "_build", "default", "CHC", "cchcil", "cCHXParseFile.exe") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not know the binary analyzer uses the c parser command. I've never copied it over!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like it's a recent addition
chb/util/Config.py
Outdated
| if viable_alts: | ||
| self.codehawkdir = viable_alts[0] | ||
|
|
||
| ## analyzer executables |
brk
changed the title
No description provided.