Ian Lance Taylor ian@wasabisystems.com
Tue May 25 20:47:00 GMT 2004

• Previous message (by thread): RFC: Remove sec->name and bfd_section_name
• Next message (by thread): RFC: Remove sec->name and bfd_section_name
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:

> I am working on a patch to get rid of sec->name. Please use
> bfd_get_section_name for section name.
> 
> BTW, we have both
> 
> #define bfd_get_section_name(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name + 0)
> #define bfd_section_name(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name)
> 
> 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.

> and add
> 
> #define bfd_set_section_name(bfd, ptr, name) ((ptr)->name = (name), TRUE)

That seems reasonable.

Ian

---

• Previous message (by thread): RFC: Remove sec->name and bfd_section_name
• Next message (by thread): RFC: Remove sec->name and bfd_section_name
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list