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: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:19:34 -0400
- 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> <CAFiYyc3DtZq=BStv3t041GuPp964J0FMpv4TTQT4ScoDU4KQ0g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:09:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> 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.
personally I think C++ has made gcc substantially easier to understand,
but that oppinion could be biased by all sorts of things. IN any case
I'd be interested to know what's more complicated so I might try and fix
them, but that's pretty off topic.
> > 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.
fair enough, that's an issue I personally care about much more. However
I was reminded of this one, and it would be easy enough to do so figured
> > Trev
> >> Richard.
> >> > Trev