Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> 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