Re: [PATCH] libdw: Add dwarf_peel_type. Use it in dwarf_aggregate_size.

[Petr Machata <pmachata at redhat dot com>]

Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com> writes:

> Is it clear what the intent of the function is?

Yes.

> And when we do extend the tags that get peeled, do we need to update
> the function symbol version?

I don't think so.  If we are adding new tags (i.e. from a new Dwarf
version) and the additions fit into existing contract, then callers
should benefit from the improvements without having to be rebuilt.

Adding more tags from existing versions is something of a gray area, as
the code could easily assume a set of tags that are peeled.  I still
lean towards not bumping.  If the contract didn't change, this is just
bugfixing.  We really should have peeled this particular tag, as it fits
the bill, but we forgot about it.

Thanks,
Petr