Re: [rfa] SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME, SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Yes!

thanks
elena











On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com> said:

> A couple of things.  I think the sentence "the programmer
> thinks a symbol is called" is a bit vague.  Maybe something like the
> 'name of a symbol as it appears in the high level programming
> language', or 'name of a symbol as it was declared in the high level
> program' or something like that? 

> Second thing, more important. I think that if we are going to try to
> switch away from using SYMBOL_NAME, we should be renaming it to
> DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME, because this will be more effective than
> putting a 'suggested use' in a comment.  It's a bit more of slog work,
> but we could then even ARI the DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME.

Here's a revised version that should meet those objections: it fiddles
with the comments and mechanically replaces all uses of SYMBOL_NAME by
DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME (as well as introducing SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME and
SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME, as before).  I even remembered to search and
replace in the gdbtk directory, so hopefully I won't annoy the insight
people this time, and I hope you'll notice the delightfully svelte
ChangeLogs. :-)

It compiles okay, so I don't seem to have missed any places.  Assuming
that it passes 'make check' (I'm running that now), is it okay?

David Carlton
carlton at math dot stanford dot edu