Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t

Mark Kettenis
2010-08-31T18:45:52Z

> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:28:29 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:08:14 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > It does not matter much to me if we decide to allow types named with
> > a _t suffix. But the gdb_ prefix also increases the chances of avoiding
> > name collisions with external declarations.
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:11:45 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > A strange ruling, I think _t is used in lots of applications.
>
> I would prefer gdb_target_signal_t or also gdb_target_signal.
>
> Is one of those approved?

If you're going to change it, I vote for gdb_target_signal.

I won't block target_signal_t either, but I do hope people realize the
_t suffix should be avoided, or at least an app-specific prefix should
be used.

Cheers,

Mark