From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11148 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 10:37:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11131 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 10:37:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ovh.starynkevitch.net Received: from Unknown (HELO ovh.starynkevitch.net) (46.105.17.220) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:37:01 +0000 Received: from ours.starynkevitch.net ([213.41.244.95] helo=hector.lesours) by ovh.starynkevitch.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VeMxH-0006Yg-Jj; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:36:51 +0100 Received: from basile18 by hector.lesours with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VeMxC-0006tI-AE; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:36:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:58:00 -0000 From: Basile Starynkevitch To: Andrew MacLeod Cc: gcc-patches , Richard Biener , Jeff Law , Diego Novillo Subject: Re: [patch] Create gimple-expr..[ch] ... was Re: RFC: gimple.[ch] break apart Message-ID: <20131107103646.GA26387@ours.starynkevitch.net> References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <52791C46.6090909@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52791C46.6090909@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00737.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > I decided to name the new file gimple-expr.[ch] instead of > gimple-decl.... This will eventually split into gimple-type.[ch], > gimple-decl.[ch], and gimple-expr.[ch]. Since we are adding *new* C++ files, can't we please name them *.cc for the implementation part, so at least create gimple-expr.h and gimple-expr.cc but not gimple-expr.c, please! There are some reasons to keep existing *.c files containing C++ code (IMHO the reasons are bad ones, and related to poor habits and to deficiencies in the version control system we have to use, but I really don't want to open that debate again). But for **NEW** files which are definitely in C++, I don't understand why they should be named .c files; this is confusing for all (and, for instance, when compiling them with Clang we are getting -IMHO rightly- some warnings about the file naming). If I remember well, there have been (in the discussion about naming C++ source files of GCC) a suggestion (and perhaps even a consensus), probably by Diego Novillo, to name *.cc our new files which are in C++. Having old C++ files named *.c is already a big frustration (most editors are by default configured to handle them as C, not as C++, files and most developers, notably newbies to GCC contributions, are expecting them to be C files not C++ ones). But IMHO having new source files inside GCC coded in C++ with a *.c file extension is non-sense; such files should have a .cc (or maybe .cpp or .cxx) extension, not a .c extension. Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***