GSOC 2016

[ayushIIITD]

Hi, 
Thanks for the response.

No the tool is not published. This tool is a part of my research, and we just submitted our research to FSE 2016. We’ll open source it once it gets published. 

I can see strace currently supports 13 output formats. 
Regarding GSOC 2016, I can see one of the projects “Refactor the output-related code to support JSON as an output format” still listed despite it being there for the past two years.
I can see the reason for this not being a part of the main codebase, is because the patch was too big to be accepted. 
I’d like to streamline this code and submit it in form of a number of smaller patches. 
Given the patch, it makes it extremely easy to reverse engineer what he did and also understand the changes that need to be made.

I’d like to take this up for the upcoming GSOC. 
Initially I think I can submit a small patch, just declaring the print functions for the json format, in the definitions header (def.h) file as a part of my proposal.

I’d like to know your thoughts on the same!

Thanks
Ayush Goel 


> On 04-Mar-2016, at 6:02 AM, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:14:32AM +0530, Ayush Goel wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> Firstly I’d like to know if you guys are participating in this year’s edition of GSOC?
> 
> Yes: https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/5106770607341568/
> 
> Coincidentally, this link also answers your question about the list
> of GSoC project ideas for this year.
> 
>> I got extremely excited when I came across this tool. I’ve been working on something similar for the past one year. I’ve been trying to see if there’s a perfect semantic similarity between two versions of the same library, by comparing their sequence of system calls. The tool i’m building assumes that the end user won’t have any access to the library’s source code, so I’m only working with binaries. I dynamically instrument them, using tools like Intel’s pin, bit blaze and then extract the sequence of system calls. 
> 
> Is the tool you are talking about published under a free software license?
> 
> 
> -- 
> ldv