Re: bfd_read and bfd_write

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

 > I have patches for all of bfd, gas, gdb.  Shouldn't be more than half an
 > hour checking them all in, unless my net connection breaks or something.
 > I tend to agree with rth that it's better to break things temporarily
 > and force use of a new interface than leave compatibility code around,
 > unless it's a major effort to change over.
 >
 > Of course, you could force me to leave the old code in by witholding
 > permission to make the changes to gdb.   [:-)]

could i suggest taking a step back and deciding what bfd's policy is 
going to be on public / external interfaces.  remember, bfd is a library 
used by more than gdb and the other code immediately to hand.  i don't 
think changing public / external interfaces should be taken lightly (are 
you bumping the shlib version?).

i'd strongly recommend at least changing the function name as well as 
the function signature - that way old code can't pick up the new 
interface.  i'd also prefer to have the old interface around for at 
least a wee bit (allow mix 'n' match) of new bfd, old ... and give the 
change a chance to propogate / settle.  this also guarentees that gdb 
continues to _always_ be buildable.  i'm also some what puzzled as to 
why this all has to be done as a single jumbo patch, three separate 
patches (add new, change, delete old) are surely easier.

if you want, i can also add a check to gdb that ensures that the old 
function isn't used.

enjoy
	andrew