------- Additional Comments From dcoutts at gentoo dot org 2006-03-17 17:15
-------
To try and make this patch less of a hack I tried this:
add a new _bfd_generic_bfd_free_cached_info and in libbfd.h change the
#define _bfd_generic_bfd_free_cached_info bfd_true
to a proper prototype:
bfd_boolean _bfd_generic_bfd_free_cached_info (bfd *);
Then in libbfd.c I added the implementaion:
bfd_boolean
_bfd_generic_bfd_free_cached_info (bfd *abfd) {
bfd_hash_table_free (&abfd->section_htab);
objalloc_free ((struct objalloc *) abfd->memory);
return TRUE;
}
So I need someone else woh knows about bfd to say if this code is appropriate
for the generic implementation or if it's only appropriate for some
targets/backends. Also I don't know if this would mess up other users of
bfd_free_cached_info, though as far as I can see it's only called from
archive.c.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2467
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
