From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8324 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2003 05:57:19 -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 8316 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2003 05:57:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2003 05:57:18 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AOAfd-0003cf-GD; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:58:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Cagney CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:51 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:51 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > This patch deprecates remaining STREQ and STREQ uses. These are the > ones that weren't covered by my testing GDB on a stabs system. It is > worth noting that the bulk occure in language specific files - this > suggests an area that needs improved testsuite coverage. 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?