This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Date: 21 May 2003 15:27:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: PATCH: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
- References: <vt265o4ulma.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com> <3ECBDCC4.3000302@redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> > The only effect of this patch at the moment is to make
> > bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory a bit clumsier to use by the only code
> > that uses it. That function is only expected to be used from GDB,
> > which actually does have a function called "target_read_memory", whose
> > type is exactly that expected by the old interface. It does, in fact,
> > rely on global variables to decide what to read.
> > But I do think it's a better interface, and that eventually GDB's
> > target_read_memory function will change. So I think it's a good idea
> > to get the interface right early.
>
> Yes, but while you're there can the can you please also expunge that
> ehdr_vma parameter so that this uses a normal read() function that
> takes an offset.
In other words, make the target_read_memory function responsible for
adding in the base address of the ELF image in memory, so that the BFD
code deals strictly in offsets? That does seem nicer.
> However, I think this really should be done right the first time (a
> proper way of supplying the read functions to a generic bfd).
Sure. But for what it's worth, nothing in this interface precludes
doing that as a compatible improvement.
> PS: Please anything but baton, context for instance.
Well, I'm more than happy to follow any existing convention. But
where are there other pointers named 'context'? As far as I can see,
there is no convention for naming these little pass-through pointers.