On 15/02/2020 05:22, Gedare Bloom wrote:
This makes sense. Is there any reason for the ordering?
It should be alphabetically sorted.
If possible, I think grouping by obsoleted version or alphabetical
ordering would be a good idea.
Maybe I should add a comment like this to the top of the list:
/*
* Please keep the list of obsolete configuration options
alphabetically sorted.
*
* Use #warning for renamed options and define the new option accordingly.
*
* Use #warning for obsolete options which are now superfluous, e.g.
because
* the objects are now self-contained.
*
* Use #error for options which require now a different configuration
approach,
* e.g. options for an own configuration table.
*/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
