From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 117274 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2019 02:24:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 117266 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2019 02:24:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=eternity X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 02:24:46 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C2221E059; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:24:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Renaming .c files to .cc? To: Christian Biesinger , gdb@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves References: From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <75cc7aeb-76d7-b293-bef7-3a7bcc699ff3@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 02:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On 2019-12-10 5:18 p.m., Christian Biesinger via gdb wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what people's thoughts are on renaming the .c files to > .cc, since they are in fact C++ code? (Only for files under gdb/) > > Advantages: > - Easier for newcomers to see that the code is, in fact, C++ > - Editors will syntax highlight C++ keywords w/o having to be told > that these files are C++ > > On IRC it was mentioned that git may have issues with renames like > that but I have found that "git log --follow" and such are doing a > good job with that, at least as long as the same commit doesn't change > the file too much while it is renamed, which I wouldn't expect to be a > problem here. > > Thoughts? > Christian Given that git makes it possible to browse the history across the file rename, I would vote for renaming, so that we are not stuck with this oddity for eternity. Simon