xcoff64 bfd-bfd-in2.h.patch

[Tom Rix]

I agree, this is a meaningless patch. 
I retract it. 

Tom

Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
GCC Engineer
256 704 9201


> -----Original Message-----
> From: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Ian Lance Taylor
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: Tom Rix
> Cc: binutils
> Subject: Re: xcoff64 bfd-bfd-in2.h.patch
> 
> 
> "Tom Rix" <trix@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > bfd-in2.h :
> > 	move extern xcoff declarations to libxcoff.h
> 
> Note that bfd-in2.h is a generated file.  There is no need to send
> patches for it.  Instead, send patches to the source files.
> 
> To rebuild bfd-in2.h from sources, use `make headers'.
> 
> Also, I think this patch is wrong.  Generally, functions which are
> invoked from outside BFD should be declared in bfd.h.  Header files
> like libxcoff.h are for local use within BFD only.  I put those
> functions in bfd.h in the first place because they are called by the
> linker from outside BFD.  I don't think the linker should include
> libxcoff.h.
> 
> Also, I note that people will certainly ask you for ChangeLog entries,
> so be prepared to send those.  Perhaps you already plan to do this.
> 
> Ian