On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 01:25:25PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
The alternative question is who wants dwfl_report_elf with the
meaning of its third argument? It's used by link_map.c, but that could
just call an internal routine instead.
The current meaning of the third argument vs ET_DYN files is certainly
confusing. At least to me. It wasn't till Jan explained it to me that
I realized what really was happening. So having base always mean base
does look like a good idea to me.
I haven't found any users of dwfl_report_elf outside the elfutils code
base. But that doesn't mean there aren't any. Is there any way we can
let the user signal they want the new semantics? Maybe have the module
name argument have some prefix or suffix. Or is that even uglier?