Re: [PATCH] Rename i386_xxx_reg_to_regnum

[Brian Ford <ford@vss.fsi.com>]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jim Blandy wrote:

> Brian Ford writes:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Brian Ford wrote:
> > >> I still propose we rename the _to_regnum functions, replacing
> > >> stabs and dwarf with dbx and svr4 to reduce confusion.  I'll be happy
> > >> to make a patch :-).
> > >
> > > Please do so.
> >
> > Here is the semi-pre-approved rename patch.  I decided not to make any
> > style changes.
> >
> > Jim, I hope you don't mind me putting words in your mouth, but I felt
> > your FIXME comment needed correction as a result of this, and the previous
> > change.
>
> Just change 'jimb' to 'ford', re-use whatever text you want, and make
> sure it really says what *you* want it to say; that's fine.

Ok.  Do I really need to supply a new patch to do that?  Or, can
whoever approves and commits it just do that please?  And, it does say
what I wanted it to ;-).

> > 2004-04-07  Brian Ford  <ford@vss.fsi.com>
> >
> >         * i386-tdep.c: Correct register numbering scheme comments throughout.
> > 	(i386_stab_reg_to_regnum): Rename to i386_dbx_reg_to_regnum.
> > 	(i386_dwarf_reg_to_regnum): Rename to i386_svr4_reg_to_regnum.
>
> If you're trying to match the names in gcc/config/i386/i386.c,
> shouldn't the second one be called i386_svr4_dbx_reg_to_regnum?

I dunno.  I think that might be more confusing.  It's explicit in the
comment anyway, and I didn't want to be redundant.

I'd prefer to just leave it, but if someone else feels strongly, feel free
to change it on commit.

> Otherwise, looks good to me.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Let me know if I need to generate a new patch with the two changes above.
Call me lazy ;-).

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax:   314-551-8444