This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Use "m_foo" rather than "foo_" for member variables
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Trevor Saunders <tsaunders at mozilla dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:05:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFA: Use "m_foo" rather than "foo_" for member variables
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130904145911 dot GC17620 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <522759C8 dot 5040802 at redhat dot com> <20130911000350 dot GA28492 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <52389CB1 dot 60504 at redhat dot com> <5239126A dot 6010702 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309181640400 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <5239D985 dot 4080205 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309181849550 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <87fvt065ro dot fsf at talisman dot default> <CAFiYyc0xY9Wrn1MhWjM-u5L+OE583Yr4H5HedYi4yYaMOudp-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130920120550 dot GA24624 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309201412310 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <87wqm0kna6 dot fsf_-_ at talisman dot default>
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:
>>Trever Saunders <tsaunders@mozilla.com> writes:
>>> Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
>>> > Btw, I've come around multiple coding-styles in the past and I
>>> > definitely would prefer m_mode / m_count to mark members vs. mode_ and
>>> > count_. (and s_XXX for static members IIRC).
>>>
>>> I'd prefer m_/s_foo for members / static things too fwiw.
>>
>> Me as well. It's still ugly, but not so unsymmetric as the trailing
>> underscore.
>
> Well, I'm not sure how I came to be the one writing these patches,
> but I suppose I prefer m_foo too. So how about the attached?
>
> The first patch has changes to the coding conventions. I added
> some missing spaces while there.
>
> The second patch has the mechanical code changes. The reason for
> yesterday's mass adding of spaces was because the second patch would
> have been pretty inconsistent otherwise.
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>