[wip] BFD from an arbitrary object; Was: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory

[Ian Lance Taylor]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

> ops should still have the length field for compatibility tests,
> though.  If the backends are the ones creating the data structure,
> they don't need to worry about compatibility.  We should try to keep
> the ops structure private; I don't want generic users trying to bypass
> the published ABI and go straight to the lowlevel stuff.

I agree in general, but I wouldn't do it at the cost of efficiency.

Note that multiple malloc calls aren't much of an issue, though, since
BFD uses objalloc, which makes it pretty cheap to allocate memory.

> In that case, I'd prefer something less vague than "cookie".  How
> about "data"?  I assume most backends will have this point to a
> structure with various items in it, whereas "cookie" implies a single
> value.  Or a dessert ;-)

Hmmm, you want something less vague than `cookie', so you suggest
`data'?  I think I know what you're getting at, but the word is rather
ambiguous.

How about `stream' or `storage'?

Ian