https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14243
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raphael.manfredi at gmail dot
com
-
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
--- Comment #6 from Raphael Manfredi ---
On my Debian machine, "dpkg -L binutils-dev" yields the following files:
/usr/include/plugin-api.h
/usr/include/bfdlink.h
/usr/include/bfd.h
/usr/include/libiberty.h
/usr/include/ansidecl.h
/usr/includ
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
--- Comment #5 from Earnie Boyd ---
Gdb also installs libbfd, libiberty and libopcodes all three are private
libraries. Only libbfd adds a guard to protect against not having an autoconf
config.h included before it. Why are these private dev
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
BFD has no ABI nor API stability.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
--- Comment #3 from Raphael Manfredi ---
Why limit the audience of the library? I fail to see the point of requiring
people to go through contorsions to be able to use it when all you need to do
is generate a "bfd.h" header clean of any depen
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
Earnie Boyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||earnie at users dot
sourceforge.ne
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
libbfd is not a general-purpose library, but intented to be embedded into the
sources of the consuming applications (like GDB and binutils).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC lis
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15920
Bug ID: 15920
Summary: not suitable as a general-purpose header
Product: binutils
Version: 2.24 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: b
