Re: [PATCH/RFC] sim: common: add PRI printf defines

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2015 11:28, Doug Evans wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On 22 Jun 2015 17:29, Doug Evans wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> > Keeping track of the right printf formats for the various types can be
>> >> > a pretty big hassle, especially in common code which has to support a
>> >> > variety of bitsizes.  Take a page from the existing standards and add
>> >> > a set of PRI macros which hide the details in a common header.
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  sim/common/ChangeLog   |  8 ++++++++
>> >> >  sim/common/sim-types.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/sim/common/ChangeLog b/sim/common/ChangeLog
>> >> > index 722ad98..db67a1d 100644
>> >> > --- a/sim/common/ChangeLog
>> >> > +++ b/sim/common/ChangeLog
>> >> > @@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
>> >> >  2015-06-21  Mike Frysinger  <vapier@gentoo.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > +       * sim-types.h (_SIM_PRI_TB, __SIM_PRI_TB): New helper macros for
>> >> > +       expanding target bitsizes into standard PRI formats.
>> >> > +       (PRI_TW, PRIiTW, PRIxTW): New PRI target word defines.
>> >> > +       (PRI_TA, PRIiTA, PRIxTA): New PRI target address defines.
>> >> > +       (PRI_TF, PRIiTF, PRIxTF): New PRI target floating point defines.
>> >> > +
>> >>
>> >> It's not that big a deal, but _[_A-Z]+ is reserved for the compiler.
>> >
>> > i'm aware of that rule, but it hasn't really stopped us in the code base from
>> > using the _xxx namespace.  the sim-bits.h header in particular uses this to mark
>> > the internal macros as such.
>> >
>> > i'm certainly open to a diff convention of clearly conveying "this is internal"
>> > if gdb has such a thing.  although it too uses _xxx in a few places :).
>>
>> How about a rule saying to avoid _[_A-Z] going forward,
>> and we'll fix the existing cases if/when we get to them.
>> ?
>
> what's the proposed replacement ? :)
>
> GDB__XXX & SIM__XXX ?
> -mike

Hi.
I didn't want to impose anything, sometimes the leading _ can just be removed.

For the current patch, SIM__XXX is fine with me.
[if it's important to use something that denotes these as being local
to the file.
Anything beginning with SIM_ would be fine I think.]