From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5778629074557486021==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Petr Machata To: elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] libdw: Add dwarf_peel_type. Use it in dwarf_aggregate_size. Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:02:30 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 1415194180.18323.72.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org --===============5778629074557486021== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Wielaard writes: > Is it clear what the intent of the function is? Yes. > And when we do extend the tags that get peeled, do we need to update > the function symbol version? I don't think so. If we are adding new tags (i.e. from a new Dwarf version) and the additions fit into existing contract, then callers should benefit from the improvements without having to be rebuilt. Adding more tags from existing versions is something of a gray area, as the code could easily assume a set of tags that are peeled. I still lean towards not bumping. If the contract didn't change, this is just bugfixing. We really should have peeled this particular tag, as it fits the bill, but we forgot about it. Thanks, Petr --===============5778629074557486021==--