From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9747 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2004 22:01:36 -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 9707 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2004 22:01:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2004 22:01:32 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1B9AFl-00087L-8j; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 17:01:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/dwarf] Use objfile_data mechanism for per-objfile data Message-ID: <20040401220136.GA30848@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com References: <20040401171557.GA17948@nevyn.them.org> <20040401210608.GA9848@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > How about: > > > - 'dwarf2_objfile_data_key' for the 'struct objfile_data', and > > > - 'struct dwarf2_objfile' and 'dwarf2_objfile' for the actual > > > per-objfile datatype and the global pointer to the current instance? > > > > > > (Is that any better? I think suffixes like "_data" really only belong > > > on things whose type is unspecified at the point where the name > > > appears, like 'void *' pointers, or objects related to them. I mean, > > > everything is "data"; if you're going to give something a > > > generic-sounding name, that should be because you're emphasizing the > > > genericness of it.) > > > > I don't think that's any better. "dwarf2_objfile" implies that it's a > > kind of objfile. But I'm willing to use your names :) > > No, no: "We striev for kwalitie." > > Okay, well, how about 'struct dwarf2_per_objfile' and > dwarf2_per_objfile'? That's pretty close to your original names. - 'dwarf2_objfile_data_key' for the 'struct objfile_data', and - 'struct dwarf2_per_objfile' for the struct - 'dwarf2_per_objfile' for the global Sound good? > > > The lower-case implicit-parameter macros bug me. But I assume they're > > > going away soon, and upper-casing them would make the patch huge, > > > right? > > > > I didn't have a particular plan in either direction. Doing either > > would be an easy follow-on. Replacing them with their expansions would > > be noisy indentation-wise, but otherwise trivial - that may be best. > > I'd be happier with replacing them with their expansions. We could > drop the 'dwarf_' prefixes on the member names, too. OK. Mind if I do this later, i.e. in a few weeks? I'm polishing the rest of the intercu patches for submission now. If you have a strong preference I can do it now instead. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer