Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> > >     * cp-abi-gnu-v2.c (gnu_v2_destructor_prefix_p,
> > [...]
> > >     (gnu-v3-abi.o): Add.
> > >     (gnu-v2-abi.o): Add.
> >
> > So what is it: cp-abi-gnu-v2 or gnu-v2-abi?  I prefer the latter, and I
> > thought that was the conclusion of the earlier discussions about that.
> 
> gnu-v[23]-abi were the names originally used in Daniel's patch.  I
> changed them to cp-abi-gnu-v[23], for the reasons explained in the
> ChangeLog entry provided with the patch:
> 
>         * cp-abi-gnu-v2.c, cp-abi-gnu-v3.c: Renamed from gnu-v2-abi.c
>         and gnu-v3-abi.c, to show more clearly that they are
>         implementations of cp-abi.h.
>         * Makefile.in: Adjusted accordingly.
> 
> The names `gnu-v[23]-abi' just indicate that they're implementations
> of some ABI, but the files are actually specifically dealing with C++
> ABI's.  It's not meaningful to talk about an ABI without knowing the
> source language, since an ABI is a binding between a particular source
> language and a particular machine language.

Jim, I think it is a compromize between that and the need to keep 8.3
support simple. Longer names can be introduced when GDB's directory
structure is changed.  For the moment I'd stick to something that works
on both DOS and UNIX.

This is exactly the same as what happened to:

	ui-out / mi-out, cli-out
	ui-file / mi-file, tui-file

enjoy,
	Andrew