This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] make dwarf_expr_frame_base_1 public


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]