[Swan-dev] making struct finite_state part of struct state
antony at phenome.org
Thu Feb 21 15:39:27 UTC 2019
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:22:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> This continues a face-to-face discussion from last year.
I re-collect such a discussion from last fall.
If you are thinking of fixing only because of our discussion, then please do
I tried to convey my annoyance of unexpected change of a
well known variable to a #define! The new one was hard to use in gdb.
It is long, "st->st_state" vs "st->st_finite_state->fs_kind".
Also code used short version at many places, mixed usage was annoying.
Now mostly the long version. If we are not mixing them or rename every 6
months I am ok:)
I was suggesting to replace all instances of short form at once. However
when I talked to you I got the impression that your preference was to change
inclemently. And re-write often! The use st->st_state is disappearing now?
+#define st_state st_finite_state->fs_state
The commit was over a year ago:)
Over time the use of st->st_state shrunk. However, more variants appeared:)
see 179bf3901. I prefer one version for a well know variable name. It is
probably a matter of taste!
> It was pointed out that one downside of replacing 'enum state_kind'
> with 'struct finite_state' is that when a 'struct state' is printed
> using a debugger it no longer shows the 'state' as an enum.
And now this proposal sounds like just when I am getting used to the long
form there may be another change. Thanks for the heads up!
> Off hand I can think of two solutions:
> - redundantly store both a 'struct finite_state' pointer, and an 'enum
> state_kind' in 'struct state'
> - store a copy of 'struct finite_state' in 'struct state'
> My preference is for the second
my preference is fewer "defines" for well known variables. such as st_state
or say st_serial_no.
More information about the Swan-dev