Heads up. I'm about to push a change renaming .st_finite_state to .st_state; inline all the wrapper macros such as .st_state_name; and drop the .fs_ prefixes. While a lot of code gets cleaned up vis:
- enum_name(&state_names, - st->st_state - ))); + st->st_state->name)); and: - lswlogf(buf, "%s: %s", st->st_finite_state->fs_name, - st->st_finite_state->fs_story); + lswlogf(buf, "%s: %s", st->st_state->name, + st->st_state->story); it doesn't try to fix code like: - bool responder = (st->st_state != STATE_PARENT_I2); + bool responder = (st->st_state->kind != STATE_PARENT_I2); where the "correct fix" is to instead use attributes such as st->st_sa_role or md->message_role. Later for that. On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 10:40, Antony Antony <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > 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 > not change. > > 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? > > f937038e9d > +#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. > > _______________________________________________ > Swan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
