This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [wip] BFD from an arbitrary object; Was: provide pass-through value in bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> ops should still have the length field for compatibility tests,
> though. If the backends are the ones creating the data structure,
> they don't need to worry about compatibility. We should try to keep
> the ops structure private; I don't want generic users trying to bypass
> the published ABI and go straight to the lowlevel stuff.
I agree in general, but I wouldn't do it at the cost of efficiency.
Note that multiple malloc calls aren't much of an issue, though, since
BFD uses objalloc, which makes it pretty cheap to allocate memory.
> In that case, I'd prefer something less vague than "cookie". How
> about "data"? I assume most backends will have this point to a
> structure with various items in it, whereas "cookie" implies a single
> value. Or a dessert ;-)
Hmmm, you want something less vague than `cookie', so you suggest
`data'? I think I know what you're getting at, but the word is rather
ambiguous.
How about `stream' or `storage'?
Ian