>> Are you ok with this original change and renaming files later? > I'm fine with that. Me too.
> It looks to me like fault.hh is basically just forward declarations while > faults.hh has the actual definitions, right? Do we have any other pairs of > files that are split this way? Usually we don't bother having a file with > just forward declarations since you can just type "class Foo;" directly, but > the RefCountingPtr typedefs and (soon) the NoFault declaration make this a > case where there is value. > I'd be in favor of file names that actually try to reflect that distinction, > like fault_decls.hh and fault_defs.hh. I totally agree with Nate that the > current scheme is not really meaningful at all and thus should be changed. The one precedent I can think of is iosfwd in the STL. I think fwd is a bit more descriptive if it really is a forward declaration since in many cases you will want a file with some forward declarations and the other file doesn't really have definitions necessarily. I also think there's no reason to distinguish the "regular" file by some special naming. So, my preference would be foo_fwd.hh and foo.hh. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for us to do more _fwd.hh files for some of the more complicated templates that we use. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
