Re: [PATCH] gdb: Use vector::emplace_back

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 11/09/2016 11:12 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
> Patch is good to me, a question on coding style below,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>  /* Arguments of --command option and its counterpart.  */
>> -struct cmdarg {
>> +struct cmdarg
>> +{
>> +  cmdarg (cmdarg_kind type_, char *string_)
>> +    : type (type_), string (string_)
>> +  {}
>> +
> 
> Is there any reason you name parameters with tailing "_"?  I don't
> see anything about tailing "_" in  GDB or GCC C++ code standard.

We just need names for the parameters that are obviously similar
to the public members of the struct they'll be assigned to
in the member initializer list just below.  (We use "m_" prefix for
private members.  Public members of plain old data structs don't get
the "m_" prefix.)

Leading or trailing underscore are the most obvious choices, I think.

I mildly prefer trailing over leading for being less easily confused
with "m_" IMO, and also, some coding conventions use single leading
underscore for private member.  I see gcc using trailing underscore
for "shadow" parameters too.  E.g.:

id_base::id_base (id_kind kind_, const char *id_, int nargs_)
{
  kind = kind_;
  id = id_;
  nargs = nargs_;
  hashval = htab_hash_string (id);
}

But it's probably possible to find different examples if you
look deep enough.

Would you do/prefer something different?

Thanks,
Pedro Alves