>>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:56:38 -0700,
>>>>> Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > + is it ok to remove the __P() from the header files, ANSIfy
>> > the function declarations and make them static as appropriate ?
>> > Of course this ought to be done as a separate step.
>>
>> I myself do not have a strong opinion on this. However, these files
>> would also be shared with other BSDs via KAME snaps, and if this
>> change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future
>> synchronization between KAME and BSDs.
> ok, I am just unclear if we periodically import KAME sources in the
> tree and then reapply freebsd changes (trying to keep the latter
> as small as possible) or someone from time to time looks at
> relevant changes in the KAME tree and patches the freebsd version
> accordingly. In the latter case, ANSIfying the code would have little
> impact on the people porting back the patches, yet would help a lot
> in using stricter compiler checks.
Out of curiosity (as a novice compiler user), could you be more
specific on how it helps with stricter compiler checks to remove
__P()? For example, what kind of checks does interfere with __P()?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
