This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:40:23PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > IMHO it's worthwhile to establish a convention for padding fields and do a
> > single pass changing all uses to conform. __reservedN seems like a decent
> > convention off hand. (Commence flame war about whether N starts at 0 or 1.)
>
> If we're changing them all then I'd go for a convention that shows
> unambiguously what part of the implementation owns that part of the
> implementation namespace, e.g. __glibc_reservedN.
>
I really like the __glibc prefix, it makes it really clear from where it
comes. I don't know if we want to change all of them at the same time,
but having a policy looks really like the first step. Then the other
option would be to use it for new or problematic padding field, and do
a final conversion of the remaining ones when their number is quite low.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net