https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30077

--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn <dje at sourceware dot org> ---
The proposed patch in Comment #1 will work. It seems unfortunate for libdwfl.h
to define a struct that is part of debuginfod instead of using the debuginfod
header.

The struct is needed by libdwfl.h to prototype

extern debuginfod_client *dwfl_get_debuginfod_client (Dwfl *dwfl);

but that function is defined in debuginfod-client.c protected by

#ifdef ENABLE_LIBDEBUGINFOD

It already is protected where it is referenced by an existing macro.  The
problem is the header logic doesn't match the logic in the file that uses that
prototype.

So, again, it would seem better to include the struct from debuginfod-client.h
directly instead of adding more macros to protect the headers and types that
already are protected.  Something like:

--- libdwfl.h.orig      2023-02-03 15:03:57.669810336 -0500
+++ libdwfl.h   2023-02-04 16:57:05.734206129 -0500
@@ -49,9 +49,6 @@
    PC location described by an FDE belonging to Dwfl_Thread.  */
 typedef struct Dwfl_Frame Dwfl_Frame;

-/* Handle for debuginfod-client connection.  */
-typedef struct debuginfod_client debuginfod_client;
-
 /* Callbacks.  */
 typedef struct
 {
@@ -808,12 +805,16 @@
 int dwfl_frame_reg (Dwfl_Frame *state, unsigned regno, Dwarf_Word *val)
   __nonnull_attribute__ (1);

+#ifdef ENABLE_LIBDEBUGINFOD
+#include "../debuginfod/debuginfod.h"
+
 /* Return the internal debuginfod-client connection handle for the DWFL
session.
    When the client connection has not yet been initialized, it will be done on
the
    first call to this function. If elfutils is compiled without support for
debuginfod,
    NULL will be returned.
  */
 extern debuginfod_client *dwfl_get_debuginfod_client (Dwfl *dwfl);
+#endif

 #ifdef __cplusplus
 }

That defines the struct in only one place (debuginfod.h) and includes the
header and prototype with the same macro protecting its use in
debuginfod-client.c.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Reply via email to