[Ltrace-devel] ltrace and libelf

[Joe Damato]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 02:34 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> 03.11.2010 13:12, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>> The downside for this approach is that now everything that is linked is
>>> linked against libelf, even the convenience libs.
>>>
>>> /bin/bash ../../../libtool --tag=CC   --mode=link gcc  -g -O2 -Wall -O2
>>>    -o ../libcpu.la  plt.lo regs.lo trace.lo  -lelf
>>>
>>> But that's just a cosmetic problem, doesn't affect the file size. I've
>>> tested it with with libelfs on ubuntu. You can add my Tested-by:
>>>
>>>> Since there was no answer, my proposal became a pull request.  Included
>>>> in that pull request is Marc's AS_HELP_STRING patch.
>>>> https://github.com/ice799/ltrace/pull/3
>>>
>>> When doing kernel development it's usual add you S-o-b to the patches
>>> from other people if you add then to you own branch. How do you handle
>>> it in ltrace?
>>
>> I don't think we do.  I can add those tags if you feel strong about
>> this.  I don't think that doing forced updates in context of a project
>> like ltrace is a terrible problem, so I can update the branch even at
>> this point.
>
> no need to.... :)

Marc: OK so just to make sure I am following this correctly, I have a
patch to pull from your repo. Is that correct?