From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8478 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2004 21:58:20 -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 8467 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2004 21:58:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2004 21:58:19 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i31LwJjj024552 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:58:19 -0500 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i31LwGj01848; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:58:17 -0500 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/dwarf] Use objfile_data mechanism for per-objfile data References: <20040401171557.GA17948@nevyn.them.org> <20040401210608.GA9848@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040401210608.GA9848@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > How about: > > - 'dwarf2_objfile_data_key' for the 'struct objfile_data', and > > - 'struct dwarf2_objfile' and 'dwarf2_objfile' for the actual > > per-objfile datatype and the global pointer to the current instance? > > > > (Is that any better? I think suffixes like "_data" really only belong > > on things whose type is unspecified at the point where the name > > appears, like 'void *' pointers, or objects related to them. I mean, > > everything is "data"; if you're going to give something a > > generic-sounding name, that should be because you're emphasizing the > > genericness of it.) > > I don't think that's any better. "dwarf2_objfile" implies that it's a > kind of objfile. But I'm willing to use your names :) No, no: "We striev for kwalitie." Okay, well, how about 'struct dwarf2_per_objfile' and dwarf2_per_objfile'? That's pretty close to your original names. > > The lower-case implicit-parameter macros bug me. But I assume they're > > going away soon, and upper-casing them would make the patch huge, > > right? > > I didn't have a particular plan in either direction. Doing either > would be an easy follow-on. Replacing them with their expansions would > be noisy indentation-wise, but otherwise trivial - that may be best. I'd be happier with replacing them with their expansions. We could drop the 'dwarf_' prefixes on the member names, too.