From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3309 invoked by alias); 6 May 2009 19:02:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 3268 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2009 19:02:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 May 2009 19:02:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F722BACA8; Wed, 6 May 2009 15:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Apiav0OF5Z-j; Wed, 6 May 2009 15:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A122BAC09; Wed, 6 May 2009 15:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EE8ABF5900; Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 19:02:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] rename find_thread_pid to find_thread_ptid Message-ID: <20090506190227.GS10734@adacore.com> References: <20090501225121.1C38B84890@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090501225121.1C38B84890@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2 > Anyone mind a global renaming of find_thread_pid to find_thread_ptid? I don't mind the renaming, but if we're going to rename it, what do people thing about "find_thread_from_ptid". I always get confused by the function name because it makes me think that the function returns the pid/ptid instead of returning the thread from the ptid... That's just a suggestion and I don't want to start another bikeshed discussion. The name you suggest is already better than the old name, so I'm not objecting to your initial suggestion. -- Joel