From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21319 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2003 16:50:51 -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 21306 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2003 16:50:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2003 16:50:48 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AOJvE-0000c1-6f for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:50:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Message-ID: <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:41:36AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:51 -0500 > >>From: Andrew Cagney > >> > >>This patch deprecates remaining STREQ and STREQ uses. These are the > >>ones that weren't covered by my testing GDB on a stabs system. It is > >>worth noting that the bulk occure in language specific files - this > >>suggests an area that needs improved testsuite coverage. > > > > > >Sorry, I don't get the rationale for renaming STR* into > >DEPRECATED_STR*. Are we going to throw away the code that used > >STREQN/STREQ? If not, I don't see any good reasons to do this, as > >renaming the macro doesn't get us any closer to the goal of replacing > >them with a simple call to the appropriate str* function. > > > >Could you please explain why the renaming is a good idea? > Note that I'm renaming the _remaining_ STR*s and not all references. I > previously went through GDB's source code and replaced every occurance > of STREQ* that is covered(1) by GDB's testsuite (or was in #ifdef 0 > code). Since the before/after results were identical, I'm pretty sure > those changes were ok. > > Unfortunatly that still leaves GDB containing a notable number of STREQ > references: ... > While I could blindly transform those remaining references, such an > operation would be untested and consequently runs the very real risk of > introducing bugs (remember my test run didn't cover them). Consequently > they've been deprecated. Thank you for the details, Andrew, but you haven't answered Eli's question. The answer to his question lies in the leap between "blindly transform" and "Consequently" - why not just _leave_ them? DEPRECATED_STREQ is not an improvement over STREQ except for making things uglier. We've even got the ARI to remind us; what you've accomplished is shrinking the STREQ/STREQN column to zero at the expense of raising the deprecated column even higher. If that was all you wanted you could have done it in the ARI scripts. You've been pushing very hard to renaming things to deprecated_foo for a while now. I think I'm not the only other maintainer who doesn't understand or approve. It's a lot of work for you; it generates large patches and source churn; it causes patch rejects and merge errors for other developers; and the rest of us don't see or agree on the benefit. Isn't that the sort of thing which should be discussed instead of implemented? Or am I out in a corner by myself here? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer