This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Add output_bfd to bfd_link_info
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:39:26PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 09:22:01PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > > > I find a need to access output_bfd via bfd_link_info. I was wondering
> > > > > > why it wasn't there to begin with. Any comments?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not there because it is passed to every function which needs it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We can remove that argument and access it from bfd_link_info instead.
> > >
> > > And requiring the additional memory access is better because....
> > >
> >
> > I don't know if we will see a difference since there will be one less
> > argument to pass around. I will time it.
>
> I shouldn't have brought up the efficiency argument. It's meaningless
> in this context. Sorry.
>
> We should do whatever makes the code most clear. Obviously, since I
> wrote the code, I think it is clearer to explicitly pass down the
> output BFD. This is particularly so since passing it to
> bfd_final_link matches what we do for every other BFD function.
>
There are a few places where bfd_link_info is modifed to include
output_bfd. If output_bfd is in bfd_link_info, it is not needed.
H.J.