could you suggest if that's possible to access LLVM JIT API from the program being executed? My goal is to be able to manipulate(add/update/remove) classes, methods and data on the fly.
Preferably, I would stay with Clang. Any ideas are welcome.
This seems to be pretty easy stuff. In the JIT you can provide a mapping between any external function to the arbitrary address. So, basically you'll just define some function in your IR being JITed, bind it to the address in the outside world and this will make a trick for you.
In particular, http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1ExecutionEngine.html#a805704b52a327cc6b37aebf9cba14169 is the function you should use here.
Related
Have a question, never used roslyn before so i'm wondering about maybe experimenting it in a task that i would normally use reflection.
I'm given an external dll, i need to go over some classes in that dll and extract some metadata on them.
Like for example, the class name, property names and types and such.
I would normally use reflection to do it. Should be a super simple task.
But i've been told that this can be achieved using roslyn.
Can it? From what i'm seeing, Roslyn can parse a class but i need to give it the code that represents this calss as text. How would i get the code as text in an already complied code?
Is that even a reasonable scenario to use roslyn? Does it worth the effort?
Thanx!
If all you need is information that's already easily available via reflection, then Roslyn is likely to make it much harder. There's quite a lot of setup required, which can be error-prone and brittle in the face of new releases, in my experience.
I would typically use reflection for anything where the starting point is an assembly. When the starting point is source code, that's when it makes more sense to use Roslyn.
When Roslyn is the right tool for the job, it's amazing - but it doesn't sound like that's the case here.
When you using Roslyn, you have lexical info and symbolic info.
The lexical info won't help you, you must use the symbolic info, for that, you must have compilation and you can create it for compiled code.
With the compilation, you indeed can achieve types info but not runtime info. Anyway, using reflection for this is much straight forward.
When your mission is related to tree transverse or syntax rewriting, Roslyn is perfect, but for metadata info, it's the wrong usage.
It depends on your specific needs but maybe there are other "tools" that more suitable for your task (e.g. cecil or dnlib)
Some libraries, e.g. xml-rpc, directly use url-retrieve. I want them to instead use request.el, so that I can choose curl as my backend. Is there an easy shim-layer I can install?
I'm looking for something like curl-for-url, which transparently rebinds url-http with a compatible implementation. (curl-for-url itself doesn't actually work very well, though.)
You could do this using advice, but you will need to use the
ad-get-arg/ad-get-args functions to extract the arguments url-retrieve was
called with and determine how you want to process them and pass them to the
retrieve function. The one which will likely be problematic is the callback
function. However, provided you can setup the buffer with the downloaded
data in the same way, with the same name as url-retrieve, you should be able to
apply the callback manually after the call to request and you have setup the
buffers as necessary.
It will be a fair bit of work and you will need to dig deep into both the url.el
and request.el libraries. It is also likely to be a bit fragile.
One concern I would have is the use of monkey patching by request.el. From the
project page, it looks like this code has not been updated since Emacs version
25.1 and the current official emacs is 25.2. This is one of the problems with
monkey patching - you need to keep versions in sync to avoid version
incompatibility issues.
It also seems odd to me to have someone who has patches to fix known bugs if
those patches have not been applied to the mainstream version - especially when
there has been a more recent release of the mainstream version.
The first thing I would do is upgrade to emacs 25.2 and then determine if using
request.el is as justified. I would also verify the problems you experience are
actually due to url-retrieve or are perhaps due to callbacks being passed to
that function. If it is a problem with the callbacks, you may be better off
using advice to fix those callbacks rather than replace the underlying
problems.
If you only have issues in some situations where url-retrieve is used, it may
also be easier to go up one level and look at the things which are using it and
perhaps use something like advice to replace the call to url-retrieve with
request at that level.
Someone might be able to provide more specific recommendations if you provide
more detail on the precise reasons you cannot or do not want to use the
url.el library.
Languages such as Java and PHP support reflection, which allows objects to provide metadata about themselves. Are there any legitimate use cases where you would need to be able to do something like ask an object what methods it has outside of the realm of reverse engineering? Are any of those use cases actually implemented today?
Reflection is used extensively in Java by frameworks which are leveraged at runtime to operate with other code dynamically. Without reflection, all links between code must be done at compile time (statically).
So, for example, any useful plug-in framework (OSGi, JSPF, JPF), leverages Reflection. Any injection framework (Spring, Guice, etc) leverages Reflection.
Any time you want to write a piece of code that will interact with another piece of code without having that piece of code available when compiling, Reflection is the way forward in Java.
However, this is best left to frameworks and should be encapsulated.
There certainly are good use cases. For example, obtaining developer-provided metadata. Java APIs are increasingly using annotations to provide info about methods/fields/classes and their use. Like input validation, binding to data representations... You could use these at compile-time to generate metadata descriptors and use those, but to do it at runtime would require reflection. Even if you used the metadata descriptors, they'd end up containing things like class, method and field names that'd need to be accessed via reflection.
Another use case: dynamic languages. Take Ruby... It allows you to check up-front whether an object would respond to a method name before trying to call that method. Something like that requires reflection.
Or how about when a class or method name must be provided from outside compiled code, like when selecting an implementation of some API. That's just gonna be a bit of text. Looking up what it resolves to comes down to reflection.
Frameworks like Spring or Hibernate make extensive use of reflection to inspect a class and see the annotations.
Frameworks for debugging, serialization, logging, testing...
Let's say you have a function foo() compiled into a program that is running on Unix.
While the program is running, can one "replace" the function foo by dynamically loading an object file containining a modified version of foo()?
On an embedded system I worked on in the past, we could unprotect the text segment and then essentially "patch" the address of foo() to point to the newly modified foo().
It was used for debugging on occasion and with lots of special constraints, on customer sites.
Is this possible on Unix?
It depends on the environment, I suppose. I know that hot-swapping production code is trivial in Erlang modules and not too difficult in Ruby. C might be a different animal.
Yes. That's how debuggers like gdb work, after all.
The short of it is yes, of course it's possible. The question should really be, "how difficult?"
You can load & unload shared libraries (.so & .DLL) all you want on Linux & Windows. Specific variants of UNIX, I'm not sure about. This would be the easiest way to achieve your goal.
If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, you can always patch up the code segment to jump to someplace else out on the heap. I don't recommend it.
Somebody that I work with and respect once remarked to me that there shouldn't be any need for the use of reflection in application code and that it should only be used in frameworks. He was speaking from a J2EE background and my professional experience of that platform does generally bear that out; although I have written reflective application code using Java once or twice.
My experience of Ruby on Rails is radically different, because Ruby pretty much encourages you to write dynamic code. Much of what Rails gives you simply wouldn't be possible without reflection and metaprogramming and many of the same techniques are equally as applicable and useful to your application code.
Do you agree with the viewpoint that reflection is for frameworks only? I'd be interested to hear your opinions and experiences.
There's the old joke that any sufficiently sophisticated system written in a statically-typed language contains an incomplete, inferior implementation of Lisp.
Since your requirements tend to become more complicated as a project evolves, you often eventually find that the common idioms in statically-typed object systems eventually hit a wall. Sometimes reaching for reflection is the best solution.
I'm happy in dynamically-typed languages like Ruby, and statically-typed languages like C#, but the implicit reflection in Ruby often makes for simpler, easier-to-read code. (Depending on the metaprogramming magic required, sometimes harder to write).
In C#, I've found problems that couldn't be solved without reflection, because of information I didn't have until runtime. One example: When trying to manipulate some third-party code that generated proxies to Silverlight objects running in another process, I had to use reflection to invoke a specific strongly-typed "Generic" version of a method, because the marshalling required the caller to make an assumption about the type of the object in the other process was in order to extract the data we needed from it, and C# doesn't allow the "type" of the generic method invocation to be specified at run time (except with reflection techniques). I guess you could argue our tool was kind of a framework, but I could easily imagine a case in an ordinary application facing a similar problem.
Reflection makes DRY a lot easier. It's certainly possible to write DRY code without reflection, but it's often much more verbose.
If some piece of information is encoded in my program in one way, why wouldn't I use reflection to get at it, if that's the easiest way?
It sounds like he's talking about Java specifically. And in that case, he's just citing a special case of this: in Java, reflection is so wonky it's almost never the easiest way to do something. :-) In other languages like Ruby, as you've seen, it often is.
Reflection is definitely heavily used in frameworks, but when used correctly can help simplify code in applications.
One example I've seen before is using a JDK Proxy of a large interface (20+ methods) to wrap (i.e. delegate to) a specific implementation. Only a couple of methods were overridden using a InvocationHandler, the rest of the methods were invoked via reflection.
Reflection can be useful, but it is slower that doing a regular method call. See this reflection comparison.
Reflection in Java is generally not necessary. It may be the quickest way to solve a certain problem, but I would rather work out the underlying problem that causes you to think it's necessary in app code. I believe this because it frequently pushes errors from compile time to run time, which is always a Bad Thing for large enough software that testing is non-trivial.
I disagree, my application uses reflection to dynamically create providers. I might also use reflection to control logic flow, if the logic is simple and doesn't warrant a more complicated pattern.
In C# I use reflection to grab attributes off Enumeration which help me determine how to display an enumeration to an end user.
I disagree, reflection is very useful in application code and I find myself using it quite often. Most recently, I had to use reflection to load an assembly (in order to investigate its public types) from just the path of the assembly.
Several opinions on this subject are expressed here...
What is reflection and why is it useful?
Use reflection when there is no other way! This is a matter of performance!
If you have looked into .NET performance pitfalls before, it might not surprise you how slow the normal reflection is: a simple test with repeated access to an int property proved to be ~1000 times slower using reflection compared to the direct access to the property (comparing the average of the median 80% of the measured times).
See this: .NET reflection - performance
MSDN has a pretty nice article about When Should You Use Reflection?
If your problem is best solved by using reflection, you should use it.
(Note that the definition of 'best' is something learnt by experience :)
The definition of framework vs. application isn't all that black & white either. Sometimes your app needs a bit of framework to do its job well.
I think the observation that there shouldn't be any need for the use of reflection in application code and that it should only be used in frameworks is more or less true.
On the spectrum of how coupled some piece of code are, code joined by reflection are as loosely coupled as they come.
As such, the code which is doing it's job via reflection can quite happily fulfil it's role in life knowing not-a-thing about the code which is using it.