From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-12843-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 1334 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2003 15:13:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 1326 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2003 15:13:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.209.173)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 15:13:13 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 22F232A9C; Sat,  1 Mar 2003 10:15:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3E60CE8C.4090201@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 15:13:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>,
	Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: ARI `asection' and `sec_ptr'
References: <3E59BF0E.7020708@redhat.com> <20030224142459.GA24793@nevyn.them.org> <3E5A3550.7020700@redhat.com> <20030224151844.GA26127@nevyn.them.org> <3E5A3D85.7000908@redhat.com> <20030224154905.GA26783@nevyn.them.org> <3E5A465D.5040308@redhat.com> <20030224162002.GA27574@nevyn.them.org> <861y1r5hns.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2

> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> Thanks, that was what I was looking for.  I still prefer asection,
>> since it's the interface that binutils uses in exported interfaces, but
>> I don't have a strong preference.


> I really agree with Daniel here in that I think we should use the
> types used in the interface definitions as much as possible.  For
> stuff internal to GDB we whould of course prefer `struct *foo' over
> using a typedf `foo_ptr'.

The interfaces defined in "bfd.h" uses both "asection" (~35) and "struct 
sec" (~25) so it is not that clear cut.

Per my earlier post, I've sort clarification on this matter.  So far, 
`struct bfd *' has already been formalized.

Andrew