This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [wip] BFD from an arbitrary object; Was: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, cagney at gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:45:26 +1030
- Subject: Re: [wip] BFD from an arbitrary object; Was: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
- References: <vt21xpswqmg.fsf@zenia.home> <m3r7xr7qzx.fsf@redhat.com> <402D7482.8070403@gnu.org> <m38yj6ie3o.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:34:03PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> > - is the theory ok?
> Looks good to me.
I think it's a good idea too. I can't see the sense in those bread,
bwrite etc. names though. Why not simply read, write etc.? bfd_bread
and bfd_bwrite were added when I needed to make changes to bfd_read
and bfd_write, but thought it a good idea to keep the old functions
for backward compatibility. Let's not perpetuate silly names.
Hmm, unless some system #define's read, write etc.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre