Re: [COMMITTED] libebl.h: Add comment from README that this is completely UNSUPPORTED.

[Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:46:11AM -0600, David Smith wrote:
> > +   The ABI of the backend modules is not guaranteed.  Really, not guarantee
> > +   whatsoever.  We are enforcing this in the code.  The modules and their
> > +   users must match.  No third-party EBL module are supported or allowed.
> > +   The only reason there are separate modules is to not have the code for
> > +   all architectures in all the binaries.  */
> 
> The comment is fine (although I think you meant "Really, no guarantee"
> instead of "Really, not guarantee").

Thanks. I silently fixed this in both the header and the README,
commit c80673.

> However, what about making this
> internal header more internal? Does code using elfutils need anything
> out of this file? If not, why does it end up in /usr/include/elfutils?

Some distributions (e.g. Fedora) package elfutils libasm.  Unfortunately
libasm isn't really ready to be declared stable. In particular asm_begin ()
takes an Ebl *handle to initialize the AsmCtx_t *handle with. There is no
way to get an Ebl *handle except by using the libebl.h header.

As was recently discussed we might just have
to break this and update the .so version to show we made a mistake.
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2014-December/004471.html

Ulrich, do you have any more comments on that discussion? Are there any
other changes desired if we are going to break ABI anyway?

Cheers,

Mark