[PATCH v7 01/19] bfd: rename parsing methods of object attribute v1 API

[Jan Beulich]

On 14.07.2025 18:58, Matthieu Longo wrote:
> --- a/gas/config/obj-elf.c
> +++ b/gas/config/obj-elf.c
> @@ -2068,23 +2068,51 @@ skip_past_char (char ** str, char c)
>  /* A list of attributes that have been explicitly set by the assembly code.
>     VENDOR is the vendor id, BASE is the tag shifted right by the number
>     of bits in MASK, and bit N of MASK is set if tag BASE+N has been set.  */
> -struct recorded_attribute_info {
> -  struct recorded_attribute_info *next;
> -  int vendor;
> +typedef struct recorded_attribute_info_t {

The bogus _t is still there.

> +  struct recorded_attribute_info_t *next;
> +  obj_attr_vendor_t vendor;
>    unsigned int base;
>    unsigned long mask;
> -};
> -static struct recorded_attribute_info *recorded_attributes;
> +} recorded_attribute_info_t;
> +static recorded_attribute_info_t *recorded_attributes;
> +
> +static void
> +oav1_attr_info_free (recorded_attribute_info_t *node)
> +{
> +  recorded_attribute_info_t *next;
> +  while (node != NULL)
> +    {
> +      next = node->next;
> +      free (node);
> +      node = next;
> +    }
> +}

Didn't you agree to limit the scope of "next"?

Yes, both comments were given in reply to patch 2, but they really apply
already here.

> --- a/gas/config/tc-arm.c
> +++ b/gas/config/tc-arm.c
> @@ -4971,9 +4971,9 @@ s_arm_unwind_raw (int ignored ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>  static void
>  s_arm_eabi_attribute (int ignored ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>  {
> -  int tag = obj_elf_vendor_attribute (OBJ_ATTR_PROC);
> +  obj_attr_tag_t tag = obj_attr_v1_process_attribute (OBJ_ATTR_PROC);
>  
> -  if (tag >= 0 && tag < NUM_KNOWN_OBJ_ATTRIBUTES)
> +  if (tag < NUM_KNOWN_OBJ_ATTRIBUTES)

Is this a safe change to make? I don't think we force the compiler to
represent enumerator values as unsigned? (I can't even find a gcc option
doing so, and even if there was one there would still be the question of
other compilers, most notably Clang.)

Jan