This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils/glibc .hashvals section ...
- From: michael meeks <michael dot meeks at novell dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:42:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: binutils/glibc .hashvals section ...
- References: <email@example.com> <43DA5D91.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: michael dot meeks at novell dot com
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:51 +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
> There is no reason why such a patch cannot be included in binutils.
> People are free to modify glibc after all.
Ok; that's encouraging.
> > + case DT_SUSE_HASHVALS: name = "SUSE_HASHVALS"; break;
> I assume that this feature does not have to be specific to SUSE, so I
> would suggest a more generic name, eg DT_GNU_HASHVALS.
No of course not; however - in an effort not to tread on namespaces
other people 'own', and for which the allocation authority is unclear; I
plumped for such suse-isms. Using GNU instead would be perfect.
> If the name of the section is going to be fixed
> however then it ought to be specified as a #defined constant in a header
Fair enough - easy to fix.
> Other than that though the binutils part of the patch looks fine to me.
> A few formatting tidy ups and replacements of fprintf with calls to
> bfd_error_handler, but otherwise OK.
Sure - I just got a metric bus-load of formatting / stylistic feedback
from Andreas Schwab that I'll work through too.
email@example.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot