Why bfd_section_<op> (BFD, sec, ...?)

Ian Lance Taylor ian@wasabisystems.com
Sat Oct 11 15:38:00 GMT 2003

Previous message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
Next message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

> Why do the section operators take a BFD when the SEC already has a BFD
> back-pointer?  Vis: bfd_get_section_name et.al.

Historical.

Ian

Previous message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
Next message (by thread): Why bfd_section_<op> (*BFD*, sec, ...?)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Binutils mailing list