[PATCH v3 16/18] BFD: Add BFD pointer member to archive member references

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:

> On 20.11.2025 11:57, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > --- binutils-gdb.orig/bfd/bfd.c
> > +++ binutils-gdb/bfd/bfd.c
> > @@ -326,12 +326,12 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
> >  .     contained in an archive.  *}
> >  .  ufile_ptr origin;
> >  .
> > -.  {* The origin in the archive of the proxy entry.  This will
> > +.  {* A reference in the archive for the proxy entry.  This will
> >  .     normally be the same as origin, except for thin archives,
> >  .     when it will contain the current offset of the proxy in the
> >  .     thin archive rather than the offset of the bfd in its actual
> >  .     container.  *}
> > -.  ufile_ptr proxy_origin;
> > +.  ufile_ptr_or_bfd proxy_handle;
> 
> I might guess that it'll be changed later, but at this point the comment
> still only talking of file offsets is irritating. Can there be some minimal
> adjustment right away?

 I've added "Room for a BFD pointer is alternatively provided for future 
use." in v4.

> > --- binutils-gdb.orig/binutils/bucomm.c
> > +++ binutils-gdb/binutils/bucomm.c
> > @@ -477,10 +477,12 @@ print_arelt_descr (FILE *file, bfd *abfd
> >  
> >    if (offsets)
> >      {
> > -      if (bfd_is_thin_archive (abfd) && abfd->proxy_origin)
> > -        fprintf (file, " 0x%lx", (unsigned long) abfd->proxy_origin);
> > +      if (bfd_is_thin_archive (abfd) && abfd->proxy_handle.file_offset)
> > +	fprintf (file, " 0x%lx",
> > +		 (unsigned long) abfd->proxy_handle.file_offset);
> >        else if (!bfd_is_thin_archive (abfd) && abfd->origin)
> > -        fprintf (file, " 0x%lx", (unsigned long) abfd->origin);
> > +	fprintf (file, " 0x%lx",
> > +		 (unsigned long) abfd->origin);
> 
> Aiui you correct indentation here.

 Umm, no, the format specifier's corresponding argument has changed for 
each `fprintf' invocation.  The new code has to conform to the GNU Coding 
Standards of course, so broken indentation is naturally not preserved.

> May I, however, ask that you don't wrap
> lines when there's no need to?

 Well, the first `fprintf' invocation now needs to be wrapped anyway and 
the idea is to keep the two calls aligned WRT each other so as to improve 
readability, as there is a pattern between them.  And I don't think there 
is a requirement to keep lines at their maximum allowed length possible in 
either the GNU Coding Standards or any extra rules that might apply to the 
binutils project.  So I am going to keep this change as it stands, there's 
nothing wrong with it.

  Maciej