|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-02-11 14:54:45
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> What's VGOS_() about? Your patch doesn't seem to define it. >>> >>> I assume it is for OS specific code, which is what VGA_() is for. Such >>> code should also go in the appropriate directory (coregrind/linux for >>> linux code). >> >> Yes, it is for OS-specific code. I was using different prefixes for >> OS-specific vs. CPU-specific vs. both. VGA_() isn't used much yet, >> so using VGOS_() for OS and VGA_() for CPU architecture seems like >> a good solution. However, it's still early to worry about that now, >> so either VG_() or VGA_() is fine for this code. > > I noticed after I wrote the previous email that VGA_() seems to be > used for both OS specific, arch specific and OS+arch specific routines > and in fact isn't even used consistently then. I guess that's a result > of it being new. > > We probably need to decide what the rule should be for new work > though - what was your intention what you starting splitting stuff > up Nick? I was thinking of having three prefixes. I started with VGA for the arch-abstraction, which I was doing first. I was going to use VGO and VGP for OS- and platform-abstraction, but VGP was already taken for profiling-related stuff, so I ended up just using VGA throughout. I'd recommend no longer using VGP for the profiling stuff, since it doesn't seem worth distinguishing, and using VGA, VGO and VGP as I originally intended -- those three layers do seem worth distinguishing. (I used eg. "ARCH_" and "PLATFORM_" in some of the macros... perhaps they could be changed to "VGA_" and "VGP_", which are shorter and would then be more consistent. But I'd say there's no rush; this might be better done once Julian's Vex tree is merged with CVS. N |