This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]