Mark Wielaard <[email protected]> writes: > 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?
Does it make sense to base the contents of known-elf.h on the installed elf.h then? > 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. That would make the whole deal much less useful. Essentially I would have to carry known-elf.awk with dwgrep. Thanks, Petr
