From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30383 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2004 21:06:55 -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 30298 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2004 21:06:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO esds.vss.fsi.com) (66.136.174.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2004 21:06:50 -0000 Received: from thing1.vss.fsi.com (thing1.vss.fsi.com [198.51.29.21]) by esds.vss.fsi.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id i37L6nB16228; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:06:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (ford@localhost) by thing1.vss.fsi.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i37L6mV10129; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:06:49 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: thing1-200.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:06:00 -0000 From: Brian Ford X-X-Sender: ford@thing1-200 To: Jim Blandy cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename i386_xxx_reg_to_regnum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8011-Fri02Apr2004094123+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <2719-Fri02Apr2004213907+0300-eliz at gnu dot org> <200404062324.i36NOeA9001063@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 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 > > > > * 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