This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bfd_read and bfd_write
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:26:26PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:45:10PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> rather than change the function signature, why not introduce a new
> >> interface and then deprecate the old one?
> > Because then you'll never get rid of the old interface.
> why not introduce the new _external_ interface, go around eliminating
> all known uses of the old. once done (new release made?) zap the old
> interface. a common pratice is to add code to the old interface to
> issue a warning the first time it is called.
> alan's basic problem of needing to co-ordinate everything so it can all
> happen at once just goes away.
I have patches for all of bfd, gas, gdb. Shouldn't be more than half an
hour checking them all in, unless my net connection breaks or something.
I tend to agree with rth that it's better to break things temporarily
and force use of a new interface than leave compatibility code around,
unless it's a major effort to change over.
Of course, you could force me to leave the old code in by witholding
permission to make the changes to gdb. :-)
> it also covers the k&r problem - you cant rely on a k&r compiler to
> report parameter mismatches.
That's the other part of my bfd patchset: Fixing all the -Wconversion
errors that gcc reports. I've done 32 bit native, 32 -> 64 bit xcompiles,
with 64 bit native and 64 -> 32 bit xcompiles yet to do. The last two
cases should catch all the int/long mismatches, the first two catch
int/long vs. bfd_vma/bfd_size_type etc. mismatches.