From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13354 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2009 18:42:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13344 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2009 18:42:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BARRACUDA_BRBL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:41:32 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KDF00H007A1GV00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:41:38 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.230.7]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KDF00F84ALCQV30@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:41:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:42:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [0/2] Inspect extra signal information In-reply-to: <200901131105.34822.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200901121846.51709.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200901122324.n0CNOGrH019079@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200901131105.34822.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:05:34 +0000 > Cc: Mark Kettenis > > On Monday 12 January 2009 23:24:16, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > One thing I wonder about is whether it really is a good idea to is the > > obfuscated typenames like __uid_t instead of a straight uid_t. I > > realize that is the way the type is defined in headers, but in GDB we > > don't really have to worry about namespace pollution. > > I don't really have much of an opinion here. I didn't think of a reason > to be different, so I just cloned the types from glibc's headers. I > can change that if you think it's important. I happen to agree with Mark. Not only we don't need to use symbols with leading underscores, it's actually forbidden by the C Standard (AFAIK). Such names are "reserved for the implementation" of the C language, which we aren't.