From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17149 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 00:20:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17142 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 00:20:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 00:20:33 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3U0KWKG012656 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:20:32 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3U0KVw19875; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:20:31 -0400 Received: from [192.168.123.106] (vpn26-10.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.10]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3U0KTC11467; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:20:29 -0700 Subject: Re: RFC: Short circuit bfd_map_over_sections From: Eric Christopher To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040430001811.GB28069@lucon.org> References: <20040430000133.GA27737@lucon.org> <20040430001811.GB28069@lucon.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1083284421.3591.17.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:29:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00779.txt.bz2 > That is fine. What should we call it? bfd_run_over_sections, > bfd_call_over_sections, bfd_call_on_sections, ... I like call_on or call_over. If I had to choose I think I like call_on more. run_over sounds painful :) -eric -- Eric Christopher