Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul

Andrew Cagney
2003-05-16T03:24:52Z

> On May 14, 3:00pm, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>
>
>> I'll adopt the following naming scheme:
>>
>> rawnums - for code which uses and should continue to use raw numbers
>> cookednums - for code which uses and should continue to use cooked
>> numbers
>> regnums - for one of two cases, either code that's currently using
>> raw numbers that should be converted to be cooked, or
>> for code which I'm unsure of. (Either case, these'll
>> be raw numbers. When someone converts the code or decides
>> that the "raw" usage is correct, the name should be
>> changed.)
>>
>> For the last category, I'm open to suggestions for some other name.
>
>
> I've decided I don't like the name "regnums" that well for the last
> category. I've settled on the name "rawnums_c" instead. The "_c"
> suffix indicates that they *should* be cooked. (Yes, it's terse, but I
> fear that anything longer will make the code unwieldy.) I'll also put
> in a comment at each ``rawnums_c'' initialization indicating that the
> code needs to be converted at some point to use cooked register
> numbers. E.g.:
>
> /* This function needs to be converted to use cooked register numbers. */
> const struct mips_regnums *rawnums_c = mips_raw_regnums (gdbarch);

I think this is "_c" convention is getting overly complicated. Just use
"rawnums" and "cookednums" and then leave the rest to comments.

Andrew