From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9207 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2003 21:27:43 -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 9200 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 21:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 21:27:42 -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 h1PLRge09353 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:27:42 -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 h1PLRgq17275 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:27:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PLReJ13281; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:27:40 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id C6BC5FF79; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:43 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.57535.30745.392318@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:27:00 -0000 To: David Carlton Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa] SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME, SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME In-Reply-To: References: <15962.56551.907171.819725@localhost.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00664.txt.bz2 Yes! thanks elena On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Elena Zannoni said: > A couple of things. I think the sentence "the programmer > thinks a symbol is called" is a bit vague. Maybe something like the > 'name of a symbol as it appears in the high level programming > language', or 'name of a symbol as it was declared in the high level > program' or something like that? > Second thing, more important. I think that if we are going to try to > switch away from using SYMBOL_NAME, we should be renaming it to > DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME, because this will be more effective than > putting a 'suggested use' in a comment. It's a bit more of slog work, > but we could then even ARI the DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME. Here's a revised version that should meet those objections: it fiddles with the comments and mechanically replaces all uses of SYMBOL_NAME by DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME (as well as introducing SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME and SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME, as before). I even remembered to search and replace in the gdbtk directory, so hopefully I won't annoy the insight people this time, and I hope you'll notice the delightfully svelte ChangeLogs. :-) It compiles okay, so I don't seem to have missed any places. Assuming that it passes 'make check' (I'm running that now), is it okay? David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu