From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70413858413 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:33:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B70413858413 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B39413D5; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 02:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.88]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A96403F66F; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 02:33:54 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: Martin Jambor Mail-Followup-To: Martin Jambor , GCC Mailing List , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: Mass rename of C++ .c files to .cc suffix? References: Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:33:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Martin Jambor's message of "Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:25:50 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:33:58 -0000 Martin Jambor writes: > Hi, > > Would anyone be terribly against mass renaming all *.c files (that are > actually C++ files) within the gcc subdirectory to ones with .cc suffix? > > We already have 47 files with suffix .cc directly in the gcc > subdirectory and 160 if we also count those in (non-testsuite) > subdirectories, while the majority of our non-header C++ files still has > the .c suffix. > > I have already missed stuff when grepping because I did not include *.cc > files and the inconsistency is also just ugly and must be very confusing > to anyone who encounters it for the first time. > > Since we have switched to git, this should have quite small effect on > anyone who does their development on branches. With Martin Li=C5=A1ka we= did > a few experiments and git blame, git rebase and even git gcc-backport > worked seamlessly across a rename. > > I would be fine waiting with it until GCC 12 gets released but see > little value in doing so. > > What do others think? (Any important caveats I might have missed?) +1 in favour FWIW. And I agree we might as well do it now. It seems likely to be less disruptive than waiting to GCC 12, since at that point there's going to be more bug fixes that need to be applied to both trunk and the new branch, as well as the unleashed stage 1 patches. Thanks, Richard