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

[Jan Beulich]

On 08.11.2025 15:59, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
>>> --- 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.

Hmm, I can see your point, but then I also somewhat disagree. Yes, it's not
strictly a prereq. Yet at the same time, (reasonably) obvious cleanup is
also a good thing to happen while code is being touched anyway. Else it's
pretty likely to never happen.

Jan