From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27730 invoked by alias); 16 May 2003 03:24:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27722 invoked from network); 16 May 2003 03:24:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 May 2003 03:24:51 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3FF2B2F; Thu, 15 May 2003 23:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EC459F9.5000702@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 03:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul References: <1030510002453.ZM3880@localhost.localdomain> <3EBD6131.30209@redhat.com> <1030514220025.ZM10373@localhost.localdomain> <1030515220059.ZM14490@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > 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