Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visiblestruct members

[Guillem Jover <guillem at hadrons dot org>]

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 09:39:19 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >> This is probably my last mail on this issue, as it does not seem to be
> >> going anywhere. Thanks Carlos for your perseverance, though!
> >
> > Actually, I think a rough consensus was reached: establish a convention
> > __glibc_reservedN for padding fields and rename them all. ?See
> > <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-02/msg00051.html> and followups.

Ah, thanks!

> Do you have time to publish another patch using the __glibc_ prefix?

Yes, I have now an almost finished, but untested draft patch which does
the following:

* Renames all __pad, __padN, __padded, __private_tm (this one might
  be controversial?), __unused, __unusedN symbols to __glibc_reservedN,
  where N starts at 1, because that was the prevalent starting index
  on the code base.
* Renames the _HAVE_STAT___UNUSED<N> and _HAVE_STAT___PAD<N> type
  macros to _HAVE_STAT___GLIBC_RESERVED<N>.
* Renames st_reserved and st_padto_ll to __glibc_reservedN (but those
  are only for the AIX struct stat, so see the next paragraph, and
  otherwise might be better left alone).
* Renames the malloc_trim function argument from __pad to __glibc_pad,
  to avoid similar overlaps too.

While going through the code I found the following things:

* _HAVE___UNUSED<N> and _HAVE___PAD<N> macros do not seem to be used
  anywhere (not even on ports), do you want them removed?
* Is the stuff under sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/aix/ actually used
  anywhere? If not, do you want it removed too?

If these look sane, I'll polish, test and send for review.

thanks,
guillem