This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] vla: introduce new bound type abstraction adapt uses
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Agovic\, Sanimir" <sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com>
- Cc: "'Joel Brobecker'" <brobecker at adacore dot com>, "palves\ at redhat dot com" <palves at redhat dot com>, "xdje42\ at gmail dot com" <xdje42 at gmail dot com>, "gdb-patches\ at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, "Boell\, Keven" <keven dot boell at intel dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:39:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] vla: introduce new bound type abstraction adapt uses
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1387282678-3847-1-git-send-email-sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com> <1387282678-3847-2-git-send-email-sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com> <20131218032427 dot GD3493 at adacore dot com> <0377C58828D86C4588AEEC42FC3B85A7176CB92F at IRSMSX105 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com>
Joel> I think that the _1 suffix is usually used when the function performs
Joel> the private portion of a more public routine. But in this case,
Joel> create_range_type_1 is meant to be a public routine, and the _1
Joel> suffix is not very explicit. IMO, what would be ideal would be to
Joel> rename the current create_range_type into "create_static_range_type",
Joel> and then make create_range_type_1 the new create_range_type. I checked
Joel> the GDB tree, and there aren't that many calls to update. If people
Joel> prefer, I can even take care of that myself once the patche series
Joel> has gone in. Otherwise, another compromise solution is to rename
Joel> create_range_type_1 to create_range_type_full (for instance).
Sanimir> Sounds good to me. I will prepend a patch doing the
Sanimir> create_range_type -> create_static_range_type thingy and use
Sanimir> create_range_type in this patch instead of create_range_type_1.
I guess this is one of the remaining blockers for this series now.
Though since Joel was agreeable I think it would be fine if you'd prefer
to do it as a follow-up.
Tom