Re: XCOFF64 bfd changes

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at zembu dot com>]

   Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:46:03 -0500
   From: Clinton Popetz <cpopetz@cygnus.com>

   >    + #include "coff-rs6000.c"
   > 
   > I don't like this approach.  I know that BFD uses it a lot, for
   > historical reasons.  But this is another thing I'd rather we tried to
   > avoid in new code.
   > 
   > The way to do this is to use backend functions.  I happen to like the
   > ECOFF support, since I wrote pretty much all of it.  We support two
   > different kinds of ECOFF in different sizes without any bizarre file
   > inclusion.

   It isn't clear to me how I can reuse the code in coffcode.h without include
   file weirdness, since coffcode.h knows about the coff structs directly.  Do
   you mean I should ignore coffcode.h and do a separate libxcoff.h/xcoff.c 
   modeled after ecoff.c?  That would obviously be cleaner, but the presence
   of coffcode.h, and the many of the coff backends use it, led me to believe
   I should work within that framework.

No, that would be too much work.  I'm encouraging you to not include
coff-rs6000.c.  It's OK to include coffcode.h.  Make whatever you need
from coff-rs6000.c globally visible (with a name that begins with
_bfd), and simply use it directly.

Ian