From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31111 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 23:58:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31095 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 23:58:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx09.cluster1.charter.net) (209.225.8.19) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 23:58:46 -0000 Received: from [66.189.46.2] (HELO platinum.localnet) by mx09.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 33364706; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:58:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:58:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: Alan Modra , Andrew Cagney , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com To: Ian Lance Taylor From: Klee Dienes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 Along those lines, I like bfd_boolean because it's a reminder that the routine uses (what I have always found to be) non-intuitive error-code semantics. Without it, I would find myself typing if (bfd_do_something () != 0) bfd_perror ("hosed") even more often than I do already. Like Ian, I'm certainly not fanatical about the issue either. On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 06:29 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Alan Modra writes: > >> Hmm, I'm inclined to just use "int" directly rather than introduce a >> "bfd_boolean". Unless I hear objections, that's what I'll do one of >> these days.. > > I tend to think that bfd_boolean is better because it makes the code > slightly more self-documenting. An int variable might hold any value, > but a bfd_boolean variable is clearly intended to hold only a true or > false value. > > But I'm hardly fanatical about it. > > Ian