This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] make dwarf_expr_frame_base_1 public
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: dje at google dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:18:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] make dwarf_expr_frame_base_1 public
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1403279874-23781-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <1403279874-23781-11-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <CADPb22SfYPSi+-hqaGm_Ru_9s8fgmW1TvHRjOansmZOtbi5fPQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140623081815 dot GA16611 at blade dot nx> <83ha3bsmgf dot fsf at gnu dot org>
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:15 +0100
> > From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> >
> > > > 2014-06-20 Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > * dwarf2loc.h (dwarf_expr_frame_base_1): Declare.
> > > > * dwarf2loc.c (dwarf_expr_frame_base_1): Now public.
> > >
> > > [apologies for the repeat ... curse you gmail ...]
> > >
> > > Can you remove the _1?
> > > (renaming it as needed)
> > > I see the non _1 version is also static, so some reasonable renaming
> > > (perhaps of both) should be simple enough.
> >
> > Is there some convention about what "_1" means in a function name?
>
> In most, if not all, cases I saw those are internal subroutines of the
> sans-_1 peers.
Is "_1" acceptable in new code? I have a vague memory of having to
update a patch to rename a new "_1" function I'd created. If it's
not then maybe these should be renamed as people touch them.
In any event, I don't think any non-static function should be called
"_1".
Thanks,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/