On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 11:56 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > Hi! > > On 2022-07-08 9:46 p.m., David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > > - pending_diagnostic *d, > > + > > std::unique_ptr<pending_diagnostic> d, > > I see that you didn't add any typedef for std::unique_ptr<foo> in > this patch. It will be > inevitable that people will start adding them, for conciseness, IME, > though.
Perhaps, but right now I prefer to spell out std::unique_ptr<T>, since I'm not as comfortable with C++11 as I might be. > To avoid diverging > naming styles for such typedefs in the codebase, GDB settled on using > the "_up" suffix (for Unique Pointer) > quite early in the C++11 conversion, and we use such typedefs > pervasively nowadays. For example, for the type > above, we'd have: > > typedef std::unique_ptr<pending_diagnostic> pending_diagnostic_up; > > and then: > > - pending_diagnostic *d, > + pending_diagnostic_up d, > > I would suggest GCC have a similar guideline, before people start > using foo_ptr, > bar_unp, quux_p, whatnot diverging styles. Thanks for the info. I suspect the gdb community is much more comfortable with C++ (and C++11) than the gcc community. The recommendation sounds reasonable for if/when we start adding such typedefs, but, as I said, for now I think I want to spell out std::unique_ptr<T> in the few places I'm using it. Hope this makes sense, and these are just my opinions, of course Dave > > And it would be nice if GCC followed the same nomenclature style as > GDB, so we could > have one single guideline for the whole GNU toolchain, so people > moving between codebases > only had to learn one guideline. > > Pedro Alves >
