From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24114 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2015 18:32:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24105 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jul 2015 18:32:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:32:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A763EBB980; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6BIWR9r013338; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:32:28 -0400 Message-ID: <55A1613B.6070707@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:32:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CHECK_TYPEDEF, use check_typedef instead References: <1436213157-21480-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <559BFB12.6050606@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 On 07/11/2015 02:18 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > I'm not advocating for a really_long_function_name_that_mentions_all_actions, > just pointing out that the current situation is lacking. > Something like "resolve_type" might work for me, > but I haven't put too much time into it. Agreed with all points. If we set aside renaming (as it seems like an orthogonal issue, and I'm guilty for bringing it up), you in favor or against removing CHECK_TYPEDEF, as in Simon's patch? Myself, I've been acquainted with the CHECK_TYPEDEF macro for so long, that it no longer confuses me, but Simon quickly convinced me that as is, two ways of doing the exact same isn't much useful and confuses newcomers. So I'm leaning on taking his patch. Thanks, Pedro Alves