This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [rfa] `struct _bfd' -> `struct bfd'
- From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:17:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: [rfa] `struct _bfd' -> `struct bfd'
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0302261440030.41480-100000@dair.pair.com>
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com> writes:
|> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Andrew Cagney wrote:
|>
|> > Having `struct bfd' available will, I think, legitimize its use as an
|> > opaque declaration vis:
|> >
|> > struct bfd;
|> > void func (struct bfd *abfd);
|>
|> And "bfd *" does not fit that purpose?
That would require that bfd be a complete type, since you can only forward
declare struct and union types.
|>
|> > Also, as far as I know, symbols with a leading `_' live in the system
|> > name space.
|>
|> No, it's _ followed by upper-case letter, e.g "_Z".
At file scope all identifiers starting with `_' are reserved, including
struct tags.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab at suse dot de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."