From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5639251010627266338==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Wielaard To: elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] libdw: Correct spelling of DW_LANG_PLI in dwarf.h. Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 19:47:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20161026174745.GD10081@stream> In-Reply-To: 40b59110-fb03-4cb3-e491-dd74bc54b727@redhat.com --===============5639251010627266338== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:36:31AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 10/26/2016 03:24 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > The name used in the standard and other DWARF implementations for > > Programming Language One, PL/I, is DW_LANG_PLI (not DW_LANG_PL1). > > [...] > > +Version 0.168 > > + > > +libdw: dwarf.h corrected the DW_LANG_PLI constant name (was DW_LANG_PL= 1). > > + Any existing sources using the old name will have to be updated. > > + > = > That typo has been there since the dawn of elfutils.git, 2005-07-26 > commit b08d5a8fb42f. It seems callous to break API here, even if it was > wrong. Why not include a #define to preserve compatibility? Since it doesn't break ABI we have historically just fixed such wrong constant names, see e.g. the removal in 0.160 of the non-existing DW_TAG_mutable_type in 0.160. Given that others (libdwarf, binutils) do define the correct name in their headers. Also I would be somewhat afraid that might break the generation of known-dwarf.h (although I didn't try). Is there actually any source out there that uses this (wrong) constant name? > > - DW_LANG_PL1 =3D 0x000f, /* ISO PL/1:1976 */ > > + DW_LANG_PLI =3D 0x000f, /* ISO PL/1:1976 */ > = > You should correct the comment too, "PL/I". The '1' in the comment really is correct, because that is the actual name of the standard. That is probably where the confusion came from. Cheers, Mark --===============5639251010627266338==--