This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com
- Cc: brobecker at adacore dot com, eliz at gnu dot org, mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:44:57 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t
- References: <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:28:29 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:08:14 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > It does not matter much to me if we decide to allow types named with
> > a _t suffix. But the gdb_ prefix also increases the chances of avoiding
> > name collisions with external declarations.
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:11:45 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > A strange ruling, I think _t is used in lots of applications.
>
> I would prefer gdb_target_signal_t or also gdb_target_signal.
>
> Is one of those approved?
If you're going to change it, I vote for gdb_target_signal.
I won't block target_signal_t either, but I do hope people realize the
_t suffix should be avoided, or at least an app-specific prefix should
be used.
Cheers,
Mark