From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11858 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -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 11845 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2003 19:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2003 19:45:05 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0EE2B8F; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:45:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC25FBD.9000704@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <2914-Mon24Nov2003212333+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00535.txt.bz2 >> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:41:36 -0500 >> From: Andrew Cagney > >> > >> > Sorry, I don't get the rationale for renaming STR* into >> > DEPRECATED_STR*. Are we going to throw away the code that used >> > STREQN/STREQ? If not, I don't see any good reasons to do this, as >> > renaming the macro doesn't get us any closer to the goal of replacing >> > them with a simple call to the appropriate str* function. >> > >> > Could you please explain why the renaming is a good idea? > >> >> Note that I'm renaming the _remaining_ STR*s and not all references. > > > I must be dense today, because I still don't get it. > > What is the importance of ``remaining'' in this case? I understand > that you replaced some of the uses of STR* macros, those that you > could test on the system(s) you have available to you, with the direct > call to the str* functions. I can also understand (although I > basically disagree, see below) why you don't want to replace those > uses which you cannot test. But why does it make sense to rename > them? Why not just leave them alone? > > What am I missing? To ensure that future patches don't continue to use these macros. > I don't think simply replacing the macros with their expansion could > introduce bugs. If you don't trust your eyes and hands, perhaps > Emacs's c-macro-expand command (or some other similar automated tool) > could help. (it isn't a question of trusing eyes or hands but accepting that humans are falible). Anyway, so EMACS has an automated tool I'll go through with that. Expect questions ;-) Do I need to run ETAGS first? Andrew