Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:39:38PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
>   
>> Like in the attached patch1.diff?
>>
>> Or, it isn't safe to index the objfile->sections by section index,
>> and we have to look them up linearly? That is what patch2.diff does.
>> In that version, I've repeated the search on coffread.c, caching the last
>> section looked up. Only slightly tested, but I got around around 50% cache
>> hit on a few exes. (Premature optimization?)
>>     
>
> I'm somewhat worried about the numbering :-(  It looks like "int section"
> is only useful for ANOFFSET / struct section_offsets.  And that
> suggests there's no useful way to get from those numbers to the
> bfd_section or vice versa.  What an awful mess.
>
>   
I see. What about this? (Attached)

2006-11-16 Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>

* coffread.c (cs_to_bfd_section): New function.
(coff_symtab_read): Use cs_to_bfd_section.

cs_to_section could be then converted to bfd_section_to_section.

> I suppose the only way to fix this will be to overhaul the associated
> code and reduce the number of numberings in use.  But in the mean time,
> we should use your original patch that checked for non-NULL.  Sorry
> for the runaround.
>
>   
No prob.

> Shall I commit it for you?
>
>   
Yes please, no write access.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves