From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9023 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2012 19:52:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 9012 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2012 19:52:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:52:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552BD1C6B09; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:52:00 -0500 (EST) 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 ji6ebRROMSkV; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9718E1C68EE; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:51:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DFDD9145615; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: cu_offset vs. sect_offset field names bikeshedding [Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets] Message-ID: <20120309195150.GH2853@adacore.com> References: <20120305223429.GM2867@adacore.com> <20120307170940.GA22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87eht2n4jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120309193947.GA6256@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120309193947.GA6256@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 FWIW: > > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: > > Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int co; } cu_offset; > > Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int so; } sect_offset; > > I find 'cu_offset' + 'sect_offset' names for the types are OK, any > objecti[on]? Seems fine to me. > Another proposal is 'cu_o' and 'sect_o' or even 'cu_off' or 'sect_off'. I would personally go with the second option (cu_off and sect_off). And I would be OK if the change was done mechanically and re-indenting wasn't performed. -- Joel