[GCC-XML] Function bodies

[Daniel J. Lauk]

Hi,

I feel my code is approaching a state (i.e. with Brad's help I got the CMake 
stuff and also the flag if bodys should be dumped to working state), where it 
makes sense to address the organisational stuff, you wrote about. I'll 
comment on it inline...

> > I hope, my code will make it into gccxml's CVS some day...
> [...]
> In order for your code to be accepted the following criteria must be met:
>
> 1.) We must be able to argue that the amount of information still falls
> short of a linking layer.  Otherwise we have to specify that the output
> is "GPLed" if the -fxml-body flag is used.  I'd prefer not to have this
> confusion.

What information needs to be missing? I never wrote a linker (yet) so I'm not 
sure from which point on the information is a valuable linking layer.
The information I need for my thesis, is dependencies between functions, and I 
felt like: if I already have to go through the bodies' code, I might as well 
dump it on the way :-)

> 2.) Please look at the DTD/schema generation code integrated into xml.c
> (it is still under development).  Your dump code should be paired with
> equivalent xml_document_* functions.

That's no problem, though I haven't started yet. I'll have to read up about 
xml schema, but that's no big deal.

> 3.) The code should be formatted and styled similar to that in xml.c.

Of course. I'm flexible on such topics. I think I could get a source 
formatting tool, like lint or indent, to do the dirty work :-)

> 4.) The style of the output XML should be in the spirit of the current
> format.  Please send me sample input/output along the way and I'll comment.

I'll send you another mail with code and (incomplete) xml output.

> 5.) There should be no code duplication (xml.h sounds good for this).

I realized, that I need quite a bunch of code, that is "static" in xml.c (e.g. 
xml_add_node for obtaining functions' IDs). That means, that I modified the 
prototype in xml.h and also the function header in xml.c. And then I 
realized, that there are lots of those, and I probably would need them all 
for a complete dump (there issue 1. comes into play again) ... so I guess, 
I'd rather put xml.h back into xml.c (or leave it this way, never mind) and 
incorporate my changes directly there.

> 6.) You must be willing to distribute the code under the same terms as
> xml.c is right now.  This means I will put the Kitware copyright on top
> of the code, but I will leave whatever copyright you want intact under
> it as long as the license is compatible.  This requirement is not meant
> to take credit from you; your name will still appear in the original
> copyright.  I just don't want to increase the complication of the
> licensing.

Sure, no problem. As I mentioned earlier, the license I'd have chosen would've 
been quite liberal anyway.

I'm curious on your comments.

Best regards,
DJ