Re: RISC OS port

[Marco Gerards <metgerards@student.han.nl>]

Timothy Baldwin <tim.lists@majoroak.f2s.com> writes:

> On Friday 03 Dec 2004 12:53, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> Timothy Baldwin <tim.lists@majoroak.f2s.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Instead part of functionality of the stubs is included in 
>> > kern/arm/RISC_OS/startup.S, as such we are free to choose which names we use 
>> > for them. For clairity I suggest we use the standard names, as opposed to 
>> > prefixing the names with grub_RISC_OS_ or simular.
>> 
>> Better use a prefix, right?  I don't see how it will get clearer by
>> not using the prefix.
>
> Using a prefix would suggest that the function was defined in
> GRUB. Without the prefix the function is instantly recognisable
> as a system C library function.

I do not agree.  The different names are used so the namespace is not
messed up easily.  Especially for functions like strcmp, etc that is
important.

> Using standard names for externally defined functions is established
> practise in GRUB, but previousally we have not had the choice.

You are wrong.  Just have a look at the functions with the
"grub_ieee1275_" prefix.  Those functions are calls into the ieee1275
firmware.

>> And the coding style used in GRUB says to use 
>> prefixes, so we can better do that unless it really is not possible.
>
> It isn't set in stone.

It should be IMHO.  GRUB would become a mess if there was not a single
coding style.

Thanks,
Marco