[PATCH v2 03/10] BFD: Rename `*_set_reloc' to `*_finalize_section_relocs'

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:

> > Rename the interface such as not to make its name artificially limit the 
> > intended purpose.  Update the callers and documentation accordingly.  No 
> > functional change.
> 
> I don't particularly mind the name change, but I also don't view it as
> particularly necessary. Hooks doing more than what their names say (and
> what was originally their purpose) is a pretty common thing, I think.

 I don't find past sloppiness a good excuse.  Names of internal interfaces 
should reflect their semantics and not random past applications.

> > Overriding backends are supposed to continue taking the original actions 
> > in addition to any new ones, such as by calling the generic handler.
> 
> I have to admit that it's not quite clear what you mean to express here.
> You don't alter behavior, so I view it as natural that nothing changes
> from a logical / operation sequence perspective.

 The meaning is if any backend overrides the BFD default, it is expected 
to call `_bfd_generic_finalize_section_relocs', or replicate its actions.

> > --- binutils-gdb.orig/bfd/bfd-in2.h
> > +++ binutils-gdb/bfd/bfd-in2.h
> > @@ -2620,11 +2620,12 @@ long bfd_get_reloc_upper_bound (bfd *abf
> >  long bfd_canonicalize_reloc
> >     (bfd *abfd, asection *sec, arelent **loc, asymbol **syms);
> >  
> > -void bfd_set_reloc
> > +void bfd_finalize_section_relocs
> >     (bfd *abfd, asection *sec, arelent **rel, unsigned int count);
> 
> What use is this declaration? Can't it be dropped rather than being
> modified? All callers ...
> 
> > -#define bfd_set_reloc(abfd, asect, location, count) \
> > -       BFD_SEND (abfd, _bfd_set_reloc, (abfd, asect, location, count))
> > +#define bfd_finalize_section_relocs(abfd, asect, location, count) \
> > +       BFD_SEND (abfd, _bfd_finalize_section_relocs, \
> > +		 (abfd, asect, location, count))
> 
> ... end up using this macro anyway, afaict.

 It's a mechanical change and not a code cleanup.  Please feel free to 
investigate whether the prototype is needed or not and offer a separate 
change if desired.  I don't think such an investigation ought to be a 
prerequisite for this change to be accepted.

  Maciej