From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2716 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2003 00:09:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2708 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2003 00:09:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2003 00:09:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAP09dH04287 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:09:39 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAP09dw30403; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:09:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-29.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.29]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAP09cKL026100; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:09:38 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAP09Wd11257; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:09:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:09:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031125000932.ZM11256@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses" (Nov 24, 3:03pm) References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> <1031124182547.ZM9776@localhost.localdomain> <3FC26407.9000704@gnu.org> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 On Nov 24, 3:03pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > IMO, it should be possible to convert uses of STREQ/STREQN without > > much risk. > > To speak from experience, I found 'n' fixed errors in even the existing > conversions. You'll note that some of the mamoth conversions that > you've done in the past also had similar problems. True. I do recall having to fix problems in the code prior to starting a conversion. > Anyway, Eli's pointed me at an automated tool for finishing the task. Automated tools are good. (I figured you already had most of it automated...) Even if the process isn't entirely automated, it's still sometimes better to do the conversion all at once. By deprecating something, you're forcing someone else (or even a later version of yourself) to deal with the problem later on. Chances are good that the person making the changes understand the issues surrounding the change a lot better than someone coming at it cold later on. Also, doing it all at once will (hopefully) ensure that the changes in question are done in a uniform manner. Kevin