This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib 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] |
On Aug 13 13:44, Bin Cheng wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: newlib-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:newlib- > > owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ellcey > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:04 AM > > To: Craig Howland > > Cc: newlib@sourceware.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of > newlib > > library in one tool-chain release > > > > On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 11:27 -0400, Craig Howland wrote: > > > > > One thought on word choice for consideration: the new library files > > > are named with an "_s" suffix, yet the option and file names use > > > "nano", which has no letters in common with the _s. Presumably the "s" > > comes from small or size. > > > Might it be better to use "small" or "size" instead of "nano"? Or > > > something else that more readily associates? (Not a big thing, but > > > would become more important were another option to be added later.) > > > > > > Craig > > > > I would rather use the _n prefix to match nano rather then _s to match > small > > (or size) because _s means 'shared' to me. The GCC build uses foo.o for > non- > > pic objects and foo_s.o for pic objects when building some of its > libraries like > > libgcc. I think using _n would result in less confusion. > > > Hi, > Thank both of you for the suggestion. I agree _s isn't appropriate here, > and searched and replaced it with _n in the attached patch. If anyone > thinks _n isn't clear enough I suggest we just use _nano here, since the > word is used elsewhere in both file name and configuration option name. > > Is it OK for you guys? The patch looks good, but I think I'd prefer _nano as suffix. While _s for "shared" is an established suffix, _n for a space optimized version isn't. _nano would give a rather nice hint and would also give credit to the actual code base. However, libgloss isn't exactly my domain, so I'd rather like to defer to Jeff here. Perhaps the _n is ok as is. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpEVbfMifZBF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |