This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: use hashtab for pseudo op table
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:46:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: use hashtab for pseudo op table
- References: <4271E891.5090202@au.ibm.com> <874qdqj90o.fsf@codesourcery.com> <4279EDEB.1060601@redhat.com> <20050505104821.GA32657@bubble.grove.modra.org>
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:18:21PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:56:59AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Ben, Hi Zack,
> >
> > > Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > >I do not think replacing gas/hash.c with hashtab.c is a good idea, for
> > >reasons laid out (somewhat cursorily) in
> > ><http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-04/msg00056.html>. I can
> > >expand if anyone wants to hear it.
> >
> > I agree - Ben, what is your motivation for removing hash.c ?
>
> Probably because I was talking to Ben a week or so ago, and mentioned
> that it's silly that we have so many hash table implementations. We
> have libiberty/hashtab.c, bfd/hash.c, and gas/hash.c. Some of bfd
> already uses libiberty/hashtab.c due to it's rather nice auto-resize,
> and more of bfd should. ie. I see libiberty/hashtab.c as the way of
> the future.
I think we tried libiberty/hashtab.c in bfd before. It didn't work
due to string merge which requires bfd/hash.c.
H.J.