On Tuesday, 28 April 2015, at 6:36 am, [email protected] wrote: > Whose policy is that which caters to a certain compiler option's inept > warnings? "What are the goals of Busybox?" > (http://www.busybox.net/FAQ.html#goals) says: "We also want to have the > simplest and cleanest implementation we can manage..." - I wouldn't say that > > #if defined(__BIONIC__) && defined(_FILE_OFFSET_BITS) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == > 64 > > is as simple and clean as > > #if defined(__BIONIC__) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64
I originally had it as you suggest, without the redundant check, but I saw the compiler warning and added the extra check to avoid the warning. Frankly, I consider having no warnings to be "cleaner," even if I have to add a little bit of visual noise to the code. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
