From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27433 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2002 00:44:21 -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 27419 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 00:44:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 00:44:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 51903 invoked by uid 20157); 28 Nov 2002 00:44:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 00:44:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:44:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Alan Modra cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c In-Reply-To: <20021126235733.GX949@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2 On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:29:36PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > 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. > > Nor am I. :) So far, it's two people for "bfd_boolean", one for > "int". One more for "int" here. I agree that a boolean type has its advantages in theory for clarity, but IMO the effects have now proved to be a net negative, a maintenance burden. Let's just stick to "int". brgds, H-P