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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>, 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 14:03:42 +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> <20140624101851 dot GA9726 at blade dot nx>
On 06/24/2014 11:18 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:15 +0100
>>> From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
>>> 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.
I think it's fine in the situation Eli mentions. I'm just now
looking at a patch from Markus that adds one, exactly as an internal
helper, for instance.
> In any event, I don't think any non-static function should be called
> "_1".
Yeah, ideally when exporting a function we come up with a clearer name.
--
Pedro Alves