Re: Is GDB using reserved TYPEDEF identifiers? [REPOST]

Re: Is GDB using reserved TYPEDEF identifiers? [REPOST]

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

John Kallal writes:

> I think that POSIX reserves all identifiers defined with a typedef statement 
> that that end with the characters "_t" for use within the POSIX header files.

The C standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) does not reserve these names,
but the Single Unix Specification does reserve all names with the
suffix "_t".  Here's the reference:

  http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/compilation.html

> I note that the GDB source code uses a lot a such identifiers.
> Should we change to another suffix such as "_td" and document that
> requirement in the GDB coding rules within file 'gdbint.texinfo'?

That's up to the head maintainer.

My opinion is that we should do nothing until someone demonstrates
an actual problem on a specific configuration (specific host system,
specific Ansi C compiler, specific host triple, specific target triple).

It's a triage problem.  There's plenty of other work that yields
more benefit for less effort.

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
<chastain@redhat.com>
"love without fear"

Re: Is GDB using reserved TYPEDEF identifiers? [REPOST]

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:

> John Kallal writes:
> 
> > I think that POSIX reserves all identifiers defined with a typedef statement 
> > that that end with the characters "_t" for use within the POSIX header files.
> 
> The C standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) does not reserve these names,
> but the Single Unix Specification does reserve all names with the
> suffix "_t".  Here's the reference:
> 
>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/compilation.html

Note that Posix (at least the draft I have) does not explicitly say that 
the names with the suffix _t are reserved.  It just says that all Posix 
headers use such names, which therefore might conflict with the 
application.  By contrast, the above Single unix Spec _does_ in fact say 
such names are reserved.

> My opinion is that we should do nothing until someone demonstrates
> an actual problem on a specific configuration (specific host system,
> specific Ansi C compiler, specific host triple, specific target triple).

I agree.

Is GDB using reserved TYPEDEF identifiers? [REPOST]

[John S. Kallal]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 467 bytes --]

I think that POSIX reserves all identifiers defined with a typedef statement 
that that end with the characters "_t" for use within the POSIX header files.
I note that the GDB source code uses a lot a such identifiers.  Should 
we change to another suffix such as "_td" and document that requirement
in the GDB coding rules within file 'gdbint.texinfo'?

Sorry about the poor header in the prevous mailing, I recently switched my
mailing program.

John S. Kallal