This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: "struct sec" -> "struct bfd_section"?
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:08:27 +0930
- Subject: Re: "struct sec" -> "struct bfd_section"?
- References: <3F8804E3.5080306@redhat.com>
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:25:55AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What would be the reaction to having "typedef asection"s underlying
> struct renamed to "struct bfd_section"? The objective here is to make
> an official namespace-proof opaque declaration available to clients. I
> asked about "struct sec" and got all sorts of pushback.
Seems reasonable.
> A rollout would be as follows:
> - #define bfd_section sec
Won't work. include/elf/internal.h: asection * bfd_section;
> - go through the code base and s/struct sec/struct bfd_section/
> - update the definition
Hit the lot in one go. I count less than 30 files in /src that use
struct sec directly.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre