This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ARI `asection' and `sec_ptr'
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:43:26AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>Assuming I'm reading the code right. BFD has the declarations:
> >>typedef struct sec
> >> ...
> >>} asection;
> >>typedef struct sec *sec_ptr;
> >>GDB uses all three (sec_ptr, asection, struct sec) and that makes things
> >>pretty confusing. Consequently, I've added asection and sec_ptr to the
> >>ARI. Instead people can use `struct sec *' which is consistent with
> >>GDB's other types.
> >Must you? BFD makes a conscious effort to (almost always) use
> >asection* in its interfaces. If you want to reduce bfd.h includes,
> >solve this one in BFD too.
> Que? Where, in the above did I mention #includes? As I pointed out,
I was just guessing at reasons for the preference. Apparently I was
> GDB uses all three of these vis:
> asection *foo;
> sec_ptr foo;
> struct sec *foo;
> so unless the developer happens to know this relationship, they can miss
> some vital relationships.
> GDB's preference is `struct sec' however, yes, BFD may have other
> preferences. You'll note that I've already sent out a patch to clarify
> the status of `struct _bfd'.
Why is GDB's preference 'struct sec', and why should GDB have a
preference? This is a BFD export; I believe we should use the one
which BFD prefers.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer