On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:53 AM Serhei Makarov <ser...@serhei.io> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Aaron Merey wrote: > > > > Let's move the process_tracker interface as well for additional > > flexibility to modify if needed. As for a name, I like > > libdwfl_stacktrace. It clearly communicates the purpose of the library > > and it's open to the possibility of supporting non-perf samples. It > > also avoids namespace collision (the name libstacktrace is already > > used by other projects). > Agreed re: stability impacts. > > Is keeping a dwfl_ prefix for the apis acceptable? Inventing a new one might > lead to silly and verbose function names unless we come up with an > abbreviation like dwflst_ > > One question this raises re: the Dwfl_Process_Tracker structure and where its > implementation should be located. In the patches, the Dwfl struct > implementation includes a pointer to a Dwfl_Process_Tracker. I’m not sure if > elfutils currently has a ‘lower’ level library refer to symbols from a > library that uses it. Would the circular dependency cause any problems?
dwfl_st or dwflst prefixes work for me. I think I slightly prefer dwfl_st. As for where to define Dwfl_Process_tracker let's try to keep it to the new dwfl_stacktraceP.h and if possible use forward declarations to avoid circular dependencies. If it's necessary to include more in libdwflP.h that should be ok since it's not publicly exposed, Aaron
