Rename attribs.c to attributes.c

Diego Novillo
Wed Jun 22 20:58:00 GMT 2011

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 15:03, Basile Starynkevitch
<> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
> "Nicola Pero" <> wrote:
>> > Huh, I see no reason for this rename.  It'll just make patches across
>> > releases harder.
>> Sure.  But any change will make "patches across releases harder" ... does
>> it mean we can't make any changes - not even in phase 1 ? :-(
>> The reason I'd like to change the name is that "attribs.c" is meaningless.
>> I never realized it contained code to deal with attributes until I opened
>> the file and read the code inside.  I always thought it contained some
>> sort of mysterious internal GCC data structure or pass.  Isn't that a good
>> enough reason to rename it ? :-)
> I agree with such renames and clean-ups, but I also sadly think there
> are very difficult in the GCC community (because old-timers who could
> approve that don't care, and don't like such patches).

You keep overgeneralizing and I think it is misleading.

Existing reviewers will object to certain renames and/or cleanups when
they do not see a compelling value proposition.  If you think that
your change brings value, but the maintainer does not see it, it may
be a sign that you have not described the change properly.  Or it may
be simply a sign that your change is not as valuable as a cleanup as
you think it is.

In the end, some cleanups are a judgment call.  Different reviewers
will have different opinions.

> In an ideal world, I would like many patches like this. In particular,
> I would like some consistent naming conventions (that would contribute
> to define what modules are in GCC - so far, we do have "modularity
> efforts", but I still believe that we don't have yet modules: we cannot
> name them, and we cannot even count them, so in my view they don't
> exist yet; some nice old-timers have been upset because I told that GCC
> is not modular, but since GCC modules are not counted nor named yet, I
> still believe that GCC is not made of well defined modules - and that
> is what I mean by "modularity"; for many GCC gurus, it is only a
> relative qualification -unrelated to any set of modules-, and GCC is
> indeed slowly improving in that aspect.).

Do not expect these changes to show up in a sudden rush of modernity.
It will take time.  Some may never materialize (diminishing returns,
though we are still far from that point).


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list