RFC: Add bfd_get_section_ident

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:15:52PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> 
> > > > Their usages are very inconsistent. I am planning to rename
> > > > 
> > > > #define bfd_section_name(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name)
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > 
> > > > #define bfd_section_ident(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name)
> > > 
> > > I don't think that is a good idea.  If we want to fix the issue of
> > > diagnostics, let's fix it.  Let's not put in a confusing temporary
> > > patch.
> > 
> > bfd_section_ident is intended for diagnostics.
> 
> I can't tell whether you read what I wrote.  Let me quote myself from
> six lines up: "If we want to fix the issue of diagnostics, let's fix
> it.  Let's not put in a confusing temporary patch."
> 

Here is the start. I can make other changes to make

# objdump -j section

work with multiple sections with the same name.


H.J.

Attachment: bfd-sec-ident-1.patch
Description: Text document