This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB 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]

Re: [PATCH/RFC] sim: common: add PRI printf defines


On 23 Jun 2015 11:28, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 22 Jun 2015 17:29, Doug Evans wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > Keeping track of the right printf formats for the various types can be
> >> > a pretty big hassle, especially in common code which has to support a
> >> > variety of bitsizes.  Take a page from the existing standards and add
> >> > a set of PRI macros which hide the details in a common header.
> >> > ---
> >> >  sim/common/ChangeLog   |  8 ++++++++
> >> >  sim/common/sim-types.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/sim/common/ChangeLog b/sim/common/ChangeLog
> >> > index 722ad98..db67a1d 100644
> >> > --- a/sim/common/ChangeLog
> >> > +++ b/sim/common/ChangeLog
> >> > @@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
> >> >  2015-06-21  Mike Frysinger  <vapier@gentoo.org>
> >> >
> >> > +       * sim-types.h (_SIM_PRI_TB, __SIM_PRI_TB): New helper macros for
> >> > +       expanding target bitsizes into standard PRI formats.
> >> > +       (PRI_TW, PRIiTW, PRIxTW): New PRI target word defines.
> >> > +       (PRI_TA, PRIiTA, PRIxTA): New PRI target address defines.
> >> > +       (PRI_TF, PRIiTF, PRIxTF): New PRI target floating point defines.
> >> > +
> >>
> >> It's not that big a deal, but _[_A-Z]+ is reserved for the compiler.
> >
> > i'm aware of that rule, but it hasn't really stopped us in the code base from
> > using the _xxx namespace.  the sim-bits.h header in particular uses this to mark
> > the internal macros as such.
> >
> > i'm certainly open to a diff convention of clearly conveying "this is internal"
> > if gdb has such a thing.  although it too uses _xxx in a few places :).
> 
> How about a rule saying to avoid _[_A-Z] going forward,
> and we'll fix the existing cases if/when we get to them.
> ?

what's the proposed replacement ? :)

GDB__XXX & SIM__XXX ?
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]