From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21032 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2002 05:55:15 -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 21016 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 05:55:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 28 Nov 2002 05:55:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10050 invoked by uid 10); 28 Nov 2002 05:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 6027 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2002 05:56:47 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: amodra@bigpond.net.au, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, hp@bitrange.com To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: Alan Modra , binutils@sources.redhat.com, Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 Hans-Peter Nilsson writes: > 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". I don't agree with this argument. We've had problems because `boolean', `true', and `false' are widely used. In fact, the comment on those lines in bfd.h is and has been from the start: /* I'm sure this is going to break something and someone is going to force me to change it. */ We won't have problems with `bfd_boolean'. Ian