This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: xcoff64 bfd-bfd-in2.h.patch
- To: "Ian Lance Taylor" <ian at zembu dot com>
- Subject: RE: xcoff64 bfd-bfd-in2.h.patch
- From: "Tom Rix" <trix at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:44:34 -0600
- Cc: "binutils" <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
I agree, this is a meaningless patch.
I retract it.
Tom
Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
GCC Engineer
256 704 9201
> -----Original Message-----
> From: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [mailto:binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Ian Lance Taylor
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: Tom Rix
> Cc: binutils
> Subject: Re: xcoff64 bfd-bfd-in2.h.patch
>
>
> "Tom Rix" <trix@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > bfd-in2.h :
> > move extern xcoff declarations to libxcoff.h
>
> Note that bfd-in2.h is a generated file. There is no need to send
> patches for it. Instead, send patches to the source files.
>
> To rebuild bfd-in2.h from sources, use `make headers'.
>
> Also, I think this patch is wrong. Generally, functions which are
> invoked from outside BFD should be declared in bfd.h. Header files
> like libxcoff.h are for local use within BFD only. I put those
> functions in bfd.h in the first place because they are called by the
> linker from outside BFD. I don't think the linker should include
> libxcoff.h.
>
> Also, I note that people will certainly ask you for ChangeLog entries,
> so be prepared to send those. Perhaps you already plan to do this.
>
> Ian