Andrew Cagney ac131313@redhat.com
Sat Oct 11 16:20:00 GMT 2003

• Previous message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
• Next message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> Why do the section operators take a BFD when the SEC already has a BFD
>> back-pointer?  Vis: bfd_get_section_name et.al.
> 
> 
> Historical.

Ah.  Can it go?  GDB appears to drag "bfd" around based on the equally 
historic assumption that these need it :-)

Andrew

---

• Previous message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
• Next message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list