On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 14:23 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:17:28 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Yes, I think we should encourage people to use the more generic > > functions from now on. But no, I don't think actually removing them from > > the libdw.h header is a good idea. IMHO we shouldn't force people to > > rewrite their code if they were using the old functions already (even if > > we can do it in a binary compatible way). It is just that in new code > > one can use the new functions generically. > > So one should move those two old functions to the ports branch? They have no > meaning for new code in trunk, they are there only for backward compatibility > with legacy code. > > Or do you think anyone would prefer the API of those new functions? > (Maybe so, not sure.) > > BTW I do not mind and you are the maintainer IIUC, it was just such an idea.
I like to believe we try to get at least somewhat of a consensus on the list for new functionality. So if you don't mind then I do like to keep the old functions just as is. I do care deeply we don't break binary compatibility nor source compatibility if at all possible. It isn't that the old functions are now wrong, we just provide a more generic way to do the same thing (and for more OPs). Cheers, Mark
