I'd support this. Makes maintaining the code a lot cleaner.

M

> NetBSD is nuking almost all __STDC__ usages because it's always
> defined.  Do we want to do the same?  The exception I've seen
> is for assembler files where old style C is needed to avoid
> conflicts.
> 
> mrouted/cfparse.y:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/cfparse.y:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/cfparse.y:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/defs.h:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/defs.h:#if defined(__STDC__) || defined(__GNUC__)
> mrouted/main.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/main.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mapper.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mapper.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mrinfo.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mrinfo.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mtrace.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mtrace.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mtrace.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> mrouted/mtrace.h:#if defined(__STDC__) || defined(__GNUC__)
> mtree/create.c:#if __STDC__
> mtree/create.c:#if __STDC__
> mtree/create.c:#if __STDC__
> pppd/main.c:#if __STDC__
> pppd/main.c:#if __STDC__
> pppd/options.c:#if __STDC__
> pppd/pppd.h:#if __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> route6d/route6d.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> rtsold/rtsold.c:#if __STDC__
> zic/zdump.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> zic/zdump.c:#endif /* defined __STDC__ */
> zic/zdump.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> zic/zdump.c:#endif /* !defined __STDC__ */
> 
> ee/ee.c:#if defined(__STDC__) || defined(__cplusplus)
> ee/ee.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> ee/ee.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#if defined(__STDC__)
> ee/new_curse.c:#if __STDC__ || defined(__cplusplus)
> ee/new_curse.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> ee/new_curse.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> ee/new_curse.c:#else /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> ee/new_curse.c:#ifndef __STDC__
> ee/new_curse.c:#else /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.c:#ifdef __STDC__
> ee/new_curse.c:#endif /* __STDC__ */
> ee/new_curse.h:#if __STDC__ || defined(__cplusplus)
> find/getdate.y:#if defined (__STDC__) || defined (USG)
> find/getdate.y:#if defined (__STDC__)
> lex/NEWS:       - Changed to only use '\a' for __STDC__ compilers.
> lex/NEWS:         and free() for gcc, which defines __STDC__ but (often) doesn't
> lex/NEWS:       - Generated scanner uses prototypes and "const" for __STDC__.
> lex/flex.skl:#if __STDC__
> lex/flex.skl:#endif     /* __STDC__ */
> lex/flex.skl:#if __STDC__
> lex/flexdef.h:#ifndef __STDC__
> lex/flexdef.h:#define __STDC__ 1
> lex/flexdef.h:#if __STDC__
> lex/initscan.c:#if __STDC__
> lex/initscan.c:#endif   /* __STDC__ */
> lex/initscan.c:#if __STDC__
> lex/misc.c:#if __STDC__
> lex/misc.c:#if __STDC__
> rpcgen/rpc_hout.c:                                      f_print(fout, "\n#if 
>defined(__STDC__) || defined(__cplusplus)\n");
> rpcgen/rpc_main.c:      f_print(fout, "\n#if defined(__STDC__) || 
>defined(__cplusplus)\n");
> telnet/externs.h:# ifdef        __STDC__
> telnet/externs.h:# if defined(__STDC__)
> telnet/ring.h:#if defined(__STDC__) || defined(LINT_ARGS)
> yacc/skeleton.c:    "#if defined(__cplusplus) || __STDC__",
> yacc/skeleton.c:    "#if defined(__cplusplus) || __STDC__",
> yacc/skeleton.c:    "#if defined(__cplusplus) || __STDC__",
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
>  start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
> Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
-- 
o       Mark Murray
\_
O.\_    Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
#text/plain; name=cv.doc [Mark Murray CV Plain Text] cv.doc
#application/octet-stream; name=cv.pdf [Mark Murray CV PDF] cv.pdf

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Reply via email to