From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] solib-svr4 cleanups Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <1010306002007.ZM8108@ocotillo.lan> References: <1010302200140.ZM22868@ocotillo.lan> <3AA2794F.9ADC0E92@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00095.html On Mar 4, 12:20pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Anyway... I'm not very good at choosing names for new files, so I > > thought I'd let folks comment on my filename choice before committing > > it. If you have objections to the name that I've chosen (that 8.3 > > problem comes to mind), please suggest a meaningful alternative. > > Moving it to a separate file is definitly a good move. As for a name, > what about a more general tbd-*.c (to be deleted)? There are other > files with the same problem and I'm sure the maintainers would pounce on > the oportunity to boot their legacy code into another file :-) I am willing to change my patch to implement Andrew's suggestion, but before I do, does anyone else have other suggestions regarding the name for the file. BTW, I would be more inclined to use solib-lm-tbd.c or perhaps solib-lm-legacy.c. (The only problem that I have with "tbd" is that it often means "to be determined" - or at least that's what I first thought of when I saw it.) Anyway, one of these names would cause this file to remain grouped with the other solib-* files. The use of either "tbd" or "legacy" in the name still enables all of the legacy file to be found via ``ls *tbd*''. Kevin