This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c


Along those lines, I like bfd_boolean because it's a reminder that the routine uses (what I have always found to be) non-intuitive error-code semantics. Without it, I would find myself typing

if (bfd_do_something () != 0)
bfd_perror ("hosed")

even more often than I do already.

Like Ian, I'm certainly not fanatical about the issue either.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 06:29 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:

Hmm, I'm inclined to just use "int" directly rather than introduce a
"bfd_boolean".  Unless I hear objections, that's what I'll do one of
these days..
I tend to think that bfd_boolean is better because it makes the code
slightly more self-documenting.  An int variable might hold any value,
but a bfd_boolean variable is clearly intended to hold only a true or
false value.

But I'm hardly fanatical about it.

Ian






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