This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: File name convention ARCH-OSABI-tdep.c
- From: Ivo Raisr <ivo dot raisr at oracle dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:36:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: File name convention ARCH-OSABI-tdep.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <868tklhct8.fsf@gmail.com>
On 21.6.2017 12:09, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I want to extend the *-tdep.c file name convention. The current
> convention is ARCH-OSABI-tdep.c, and I want to extend it to
> ARCH-OSABI-tdep-FUNC.c, in which FUNC is about a certain functionality
> or feature about this target.
>
> The sparc64 adi patch
> (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-06/msg00472.html) adds a new
> file sparc64-adi-tdep.c which should be merged to sparc64-tdep.c
> according to the current naming convention. However, I think it is good
> to put different things in different files. So with the new convention
> proposed here, the new file can be sparc64-tdep-adi.c.
>
> Secondly, some *-tdep.c files are already quite large, arm-tdep.c is of
> 399434 bytes, 13318 lines. It is the 5th largest file. arm-tdep.c
> includes many things which are not related to each, like displaced
> stepping and process record. I am thinking that we should allow people
> moving them out of *-tdep.c to *-tdep-displaced.c and *-tdep-precord.c.
>
I support this idea as well.
There were already discussions about how big a file can get to become
largely unmaintainable. See for example
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/176999/at-what-point-range-is-a-code-file-too-big
http://swreflections.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/rule-of-30-when-is-method-class-or.html
So lifting the current file name convention will allow the files to
become manageable again.
I.