On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 14:09 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I haven't found any users of dwfl_report_elf outside the elfutils code > > base. But that doesn't mean there aren't any. Is there any way we can > > let the user signal they want the new semantics? Maybe have the module > > name argument have some prefix or suffix. Or is that even uglier? > > That is laughably ugly. You are such a joker, I'm sure you didn't mean it.
:) Yeah, lets pretend I didn't mean that. > What I had in mind was something like making the function take two > arguments, e.g. "GElf_Addr base, bool add_p_vaddr". So N, true would > mean the old semantics. That has the benefit that the API changes in > a compile-breaking way, so nobody will just recompile and not notice > their program being broken if it was right before. > > It's a bit ugly for a function interface, especially if nobody ever > actually wants the old behavior. But keeping the same signature for > different semantics means silent change on recompile, creating > confusion (probably much later). OK, that is indeed nicer. A pity it breaks source compatibility. But you are right that people that do use this function now might not really know/want the semantics it currently has. > Of course, we also need not to break old binaries with a new DSO. > But that is easy enough with symbol versioning. If I understand the NEW_VERSION and COMPAT_VERSION macros (as used with dwfl_module_build_id) correctly then that indeed seems easy. Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
