This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bfd_read and bfd_write
> 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. [:-)]
could i suggest taking a step back and deciding what bfd's policy is
going to be on public / external interfaces. remember, bfd is a library
used by more than gdb and the other code immediately to hand. i don't
think changing public / external interfaces should be taken lightly (are
you bumping the shlib version?).
i'd strongly recommend at least changing the function name as well as
the function signature - that way old code can't pick up the new
interface. i'd also prefer to have the old interface around for at
least a wee bit (allow mix 'n' match) of new bfd, old ... and give the
change a chance to propogate / settle. this also guarentees that gdb
continues to _always_ be buildable. i'm also some what puzzled as to
why this all has to be done as a single jumbo patch, three separate
patches (add new, change, delete old) are surely easier.
if you want, i can also add a check to gdb that ensures that the old
function isn't used.