This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 27 Nov 2002 21:56:47 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0211271938270.17787-100000@dair.pair.com>
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:29:36PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > I tend to think that bfd_boolean is better because it makes the code
> > > slightly more self-documenting. An int variable might hold any value,
> > > but a bfd_boolean variable is clearly intended to hold only a true or
> > > false value.
>
> > > But I'm hardly fanatical about it.
> >
> > Nor am I. :) So far, it's two people for "bfd_boolean", one for
> > "int".
>
> One more for "int" here. I agree that a boolean type has its
> advantages in theory for clarity, but IMO the effects have now
> proved to be a net negative, a maintenance burden. Let's just
> stick to "int".
I don't agree with this argument. We've had problems because
`boolean', `true', and `false' are widely used. In fact, the comment
on those lines in bfd.h is and has been from the start:
/* I'm sure this is going to break something and someone is going to
force me to change it. */
We won't have problems with `bfd_boolean'.
Ian