[gold patch] Incremental 13/18: Dynamic relocations

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> writes:

>> Sized_relobj_base is turning into a poor choice of names.  It looks the
>> heirarchy is now
>>
>> Object
>> Relobj
>> Sized_relobj_base
>> Sized_relobj / Sized_incr_relobj
>>
>> I don't mind having Sized_relobj_base when just a couple of things refer
>> to it, but it looks wrong when lots of functions use it.  The name of a
>> class should indicate what sort of thing it is, rather than its position
>> in the class heirarchy.  We should consider renaming, e.g.,
>> Sized_relobj_base => Sized_relobj, Sized_relobj => Sized_relobj_file,
>> Sized_incr_relobj => Sized_relobj_incr.  I'm open to other suggestions.
>
> Yeah, I started out with something like this, but (a) I couldn't come
> up with a name I liked for Sized_relobj_file, and (b) I was trying to
> avoid wholesale changes to so many other files that were otherwise
> unaffected.
>
> In the ChangeLog, should I enumerate all the files touched, or is it
> better to just say "Rename x to y; change all references" in object.h?

Just saying "change all references" is fine.

Thanks.

Ian