This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

"struct bfd_symbol"? Was: "struct sec" -> "struct bfd_section"?


"I feel lucky". What about also having "struct bfd_symbol"?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:25:55AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:

Hello,

What would be the reaction to having "typedef asection"s underlying struct renamed to "struct bfd_section"? The objective here is to make an official namespace-proof opaque declaration available to clients. I asked about "struct sec" and got all sorts of pushback.


Seems reasonable.


A rollout would be as follows:
- #define bfd_section sec


Won't work. include/elf/internal.h: asection * bfd_section;

Doh!


- go through the code base and s/struct sec/struct bfd_section/
- update the definition


Hit the lot in one go.  I count less than 30 files in /src that use
struct sec directly.

I'll first try to think of an alternative two-step strategy ...


Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]