From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28305 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2003 05:04:47 -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 28296 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 05:04:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 05:04:46 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1P54d532131; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:04:39 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa] SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME, SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME References: <15962.56551.907171.819725@localhost.redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15962.56551.907171.819725@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00630.txt.bz2 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Elena Zannoni said: > David Carlton writes: >> This patch adds macros SYMBOL_NATURAL_NAME and SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME to >> symtab.h. The former returns what the programmer thinks a symbol is >> called; the latter returns what the linker thinks a symbol is called. >> In C, these are the same thing; in C++, the former is the demangled >> name, and the latter is the mangled name. > Good move. A couple of things. I think the sentence "the > programmer thinks a symbol is called" is a bit vague. Maybe > something like the 'name of a symbol as it appears in the high level > programming language', or 'name of a symbol as it was declared in > the high level program' or something like that? Fair enough. Maybe "the name of the symbol as referred to in the source code"? > Second thing, more important. I think that if we are going to try to > switch away from using SYMBOL_NAME, we should be renaming it to > DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME, because this will be more effective than > putting a 'suggested use' in a comment. It's a bit more of slog work, > but we could then even ARI the DEPRECATED_SYMBOL_NAME. > what do you think? Absolutely. That'll help other people conform, and encourage me to take the time to audit uses of the name sooner rather than later. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu