This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: cu_offset vs. sect_offset field names bikeshedding [Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets]
FWIW:
> > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> > Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int co; } cu_offset;
> > Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int so; } sect_offset;
>
> I find 'cu_offset' + 'sect_offset' names for the types are OK, any
> objecti[on]?
Seems fine to me.
> Another proposal is 'cu_o' and 'sect_o' or even 'cu_off' or 'sect_off'.
I would personally go with the second option (cu_off and sect_off).
And I would be OK if the change was done mechanically and re-indenting
wasn't performed.
--
Joel