Re: [rfa] Add SYMBOL_SET_LINKAGE_NAME

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 07:23:29PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 09:23:47AM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
>  > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:24:06 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> said:
>  > > 
>  > > > This patch adds a macro, SYMBOL_SET_LINKAGE_NAME, which is used to
>  > > > set a symbol's name when the name should not be demangled.  Used for
>  > > > things like typedefs whose name comes from debug info.
>  > > 
>  > > The idea is okay, but I don't like the name all that much.  I once had
>  > > a goal, which I've admittedly been lax about pursuing recently, that
>  > > we would have a very clear distinction between linkage names (which
>  > > really did mean names used by the linker) and natural names (i.e. the
>  > > names in the source code), to the extent that, if we were to represent
>  > > these by different types, then our code would almost compile.
>  > > 
>  > > When we're talking about types, however, linkage names don't make much
>  > > sense, only natural names.  So, while it's true that your macro does
>  > > set the field that, in the case of a symbol with both linkage and
>  > > natural names, corresponds to the linkage name, that's really an
>  > > implementation detail that should be shielded behind this macro.
>  > > 
>  > > Having said that, I don't have any great suggestions for a better
>  > > name.  SYMBOL_SET_NATURAL_NAME?  SYMBOL_SET_NATURAL_ONLY_NAME?  Hmm.
>  > 
>  > I don't want to call it SYMBOL_SET_NATURAL_NAME.  It's not necessarily
>  > the natural name.  Other than that, I don't know.
>  > 
>  > I'm just going to sit on this.  The HP patches need to be revised
>  > anyway, and people want me to draft a complete interface before doing
>  > any cleanups.
> 
> come on, that's not what I asked. 

I know.  You haven't asked anything about the patch, which you haven't
reviewed yet, which is fine.  It's only a day old.  The discussion
about interfaces is on a tangent thread about my future intentions.

But there's no point in just continuing the cleanups now that I've
stirred up this much annoyed discussion asking for interface
descriptions.  So I'll write the interface description and come back
later.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer