From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29100 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 18:06:44 -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 29037 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 18:06:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f176.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ie0-f176.google.com) (209.85.223.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:06:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id u16so1398619iet.21 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:06:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I2NaBVWSR9n8ytXZBmM/5D7Xs7BicKUsyYLZNCn7iKA=; b=CYdZpV2MznGoDOKmJFGjpxE9RJo78lvx0qvtVNlWLfU0fdlCb46AwpuX0Lq/7nyyLN e9KmDJjHi+HwDfZLjFVn4+UN+3C3ozIhbiSsFHPfyDJ74KbWjCfRenoMKtq4euZ73f8K QcwEWDS84fLJbaQTnmH/YmL5tin5eokxnBj7CJiI5rCgbWGIyur6QYNj4+Lwiur23QDV NFC7zxlsKeZBD3p+GoQCmpwHSwxrxkKIFdVf0o34H1xac2rd41ENA0bmkM+srAUL7suB 9Rmb2nEFhxgfxjFrYEfGL7jOArwua3EZAPjoY2nIMjCaI7YrlqYHQaBq5L07XANb3vY1 A3Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBlUbRk8Av0J7Fonq1y69re3GvW7ti94pVUa7V0U3G+I8FenYEZIOi7k06mCqHJP/GEL59LBX5Gt6f+WqafNZumDTUg7frMhc8ZbBAIDW13AYQjpAeJSRKGxgX2Ir/1ipfprXCGqae/GnUZJo9O6Pt+dAXLD1KcseXTWlZ95FjmZQITdGa1giygewz07ube8OuYO8qrTLCgu7xCqh6EDPnHgugyg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.80.67 with SMTP id zt3mr6096388icb.23.1383847595308; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:06:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.25.18 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:06:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <527B9462.4040305@redhat.com> References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <52791C46.6090909@redhat.com> <20131107103646.GA26387@ours.starynkevitch.net> <527B9462.4040305@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] Create gimple-expr..[ch] ... was Re: RFC: gimple.[ch] break apart From: Diego Novillo To: Andrew MacLeod Cc: Basile Starynkevitch , gcc-patches , Richard Biener , Jeff Law Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00808.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 11/07/2013 05:36 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> >> 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! > > Assuming we put this into stage 1 next year, I would imagine we'd rename a > number of things, including .cc, drop the tree-* from the tree-ssa-blah.[c]h > files, etc etc. There have been a few things people have suggested > renaming... I think if we do renaming, they ought to be all at one time to > minimize the pain. > > At the moment, the new gimple-* files I'm creating are still C, so they are > .c files... Agreed. When we start shuffling files around seems a better time. Doing both operations at once will be easier than going through two phases of naming changes. Diego.