On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Ali Bahrami wrote: > > Which is slightly horrible. But neither the Solaris documentation, nor > > the elfutils libelf documentation seem to actually make any promise > > about the return value. It is only implied that, like all gelf > > functions, zero will be returned on failure. > > > > I wanted to update the elfutils gelf documentation for these functions > > to state that the returned pointer is to the appropriate header for the > > ELF class. Which I believe is the only sane thing to do. I don't know of > > any libelf implementation where the comment from dwz is true. > > I'm not aware of libelf implementations where the return > value isn't the pointer to the underlying class specific > header, but I suppose that there could be one. > > I never thought I'd argue against clarifying documentation, > but I'm not sure that making this any more explicit is really > helping anyone. It really doesn't make sense that a library > that exists to provide class independent access to objects > returns a class dependent pointer, and I think the intent > really is that callers only pay attention to 0 vs non-zero. > Perhaps the documentation should just say that, while the > internals return the pointer as they always have, to maintain > compatibility with the past.
Grin. I am not sure that will deter people from assuming what it really points to. But OK, I'll only document that NULL means failure. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list -- elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to elfutils-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
