[CCing to binutils] On 2/3/20 10:03 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > CCed: Stephen Rothwell > > * Matthias Klose | 2020-02-03 21:10:14 [+0100]: > > Hey Matthias > >> please can you reassign that to the appropriate package? both libopcodes and >> libbfd have non-public interfaces. If you use those, please adopt to these. > > I don't get it: `apt-file search /usr/include/bfd.h` results in > binutils-dev: /usr/include/bfd.h > > On an slightly older bullseye the shipped version of bfd.h building perf works > like a charm. > > I don't get it why the currently shipped version of bfd.h by > binutils-dev/bullseye should be fine? bfd.h looks broken now because they > break API compatibility by silently removing previously defined public > functions. libbfd-dev is an meta-package and provided by binutils-dev. I don't > get the correlation to the bug.
binutils doesn't have any comitment to a stable ABI/API for libopcodes and libbfd. > It seems other people (kernel folks, Stephen) have the identical error as > well: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/30/1005 > Stephen: or is the bug fixed somewhere else? Do you have an workaround?a I don't have a work-around. If you rely on binutils internals, you really should adjust to binutils upstream. > > Thank you Matthias for the quick response! > > Hagen Matthias
