From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15842 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2014 10:18:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15830 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2014 10:18:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:18:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5OAIrAq015170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:18:53 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-57.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.57]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5OAIqnT020245; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:18:53 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CE79E2624A7; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:18:51 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:18:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: dje@google.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] make dwarf_expr_frame_base_1 public Message-ID: <20140624101851.GA9726@blade.nx> References: <1403279874-23781-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1403279874-23781-11-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <20140623081815.GA16611@blade.nx> <83ha3bsmgf.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ha3bsmgf.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00839.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:15 +0100 > > From: Gary Benson > > Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches > > > > > > 2014-06-20 Tom Tromey > > > > > > > > * dwarf2loc.h (dwarf_expr_frame_base_1): Declare. > > > > * dwarf2loc.c (dwarf_expr_frame_base_1): Now public. > > > > > > [apologies for the repeat ... curse you gmail ...] > > > > > > Can you remove the _1? > > > (renaming it as needed) > > > I see the non _1 version is also static, so some reasonable renaming > > > (perhaps of both) should be simple enough. > > > > Is there some convention about what "_1" means in a function name? > > In most, if not all, cases I saw those are internal subroutines of the > sans-_1 peers. Is "_1" acceptable in new code? I have a vague memory of having to update a patch to rename a new "_1" function I'd created. If it's not then maybe these should be renamed as people touch them. In any event, I don't think any non-static function should be called "_1". Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/