On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:40 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 23:41 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I do like the idea. But there is one extra issue if we want this to be > > an installed header like known-dwarf.h now is (and I think we do). > > It is generated against libelf/elf.h which is our local copy of elf.h > > from glibc. We do that to make sure we have the latest version with > > all relevant constants. But that means it might be different from the > > version of elf.h on the installed system. So to make it useful we > > also need to install our elf.h as elfutils/elf.h. I think that is fine > > but it is also a little weird since it really is glibc's elf.h. > > And I just realized libelf.h includes elf.h. So mixing > libelf/known-elf.h with libelf.h would be slightly tricky.
That should have been elfutils/known-elf.h of course. The issue really is that a user could have their own #include <elf.h> already. So we cannot just change libelf.h to #include <elfutils/elf.h>. I am not sure how to nicely make known-elf.h work if we make it an installed header given we don't fully control elf.h. Maybe we can just make known-elf.h include the correct elf.h itself. And tell users to never use #include <elf.h> when using libelf.h and/or known-elf.h? But known-elf.h could still be useful even if we only use it as internal header. So I would still like to see it. Thanks, Mark
