This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: is it time to mass change from .c to .cc in gcc/ ?
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:09:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: is it time to mass change from .c to .cc in gcc/ ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150414052030 dot GE8601 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <CAFiYyc0RydCJhmSdB6_uDY+SpTAYC2RN_d17bdZR=ug7ThFN2w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150415000911 dot GA30215 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Trevor Saunders <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> > To be clear I only want to talk about gcc/**/*.c but *not* testsuite/
>> > The Question of changing from .c to a more standard C++ file extension
>> > has come up a couple times. I believe its reasonable accurate to say
>> > the consensus is moderately in favor of doing this at some point. The
>> > biggest concern was of course being able to access pre rename history
>> > easily. I know git will either handle this by default or with an option
>> > depending on the command, and svn claims it can handle renames so we
>> > should be good on that front. The other question was if we should wait
>> > to do this at the same time as a reorganization of directory structure.
>> > That was back in august 2013, about a year and a half ago, and we
>> > haven't done it or really moved forward with a plan to do it. It seems
>> > to me that if we do this part now we can then deal with moving files
>> > into directories later piece by piece and not need to move everything at
>> > once. If we want to go ahead with renaming we should pick a time, I
>> > think some people have advanced the idea of doing it just after a
>> > branch, on the other hand last year we held off on the big gimple
>> > refactoring until after the branch had released a .1.
>> > thoughts?
>> I see no value in doing this but making branch maintainance awkward.
> I think its mostly valuable to cause less confusion of new people, and
> though it is a simpler thing every little thing can be the thing that
> breaks the cammel's back.
I don't buy this kind of argument given that the switch to C++ has
complicated things instead of simplifying them.
> Yes its not all that hard to configure
> editors and what not to handle it properly, but every new person needs
> to do it, and looking up configuration options takes time that can more
> profitably be spent.
> That said keeping backports as easy as possible is also certainly
> important. I'm curious why renames hurt doing backports, I'm pretty
> confident git cherry-pick will handle it for you, and if you like patch
> files for some reason I'd think its easy to fix up with sed though
> running that for each backport by hand would get a little old.
So if git can simplify the issues then the appropriate time to do this
mass rename is when we switch to git.
>> > Trev