On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:21:59PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > This part is what makes me opt for moving the prototypes to the
> > > MD header. These functions are trivial most of the time that
> > > inlining them makes sense. I don't see wh
Dan Nelson wrote:
I think 8 years of warnings is more than enough :)
I agree with you that it ought to be. Personally I think people that
still use "#include " should be forced to write out "#include
" 1000 times, then eat the paper. However, it is an imperfect
universe. ;)
Out of the ~710
In the last episode (Jan 14), Keith Jones said:
> I'm new to this list, so apologies if this has been stated before,
> but having just discovered that /usr/include/malloc.h has gone from
> being merely deprecated (in -STABLE) to obsolete (in -RC), I'm with
> Terry on this one. Yes it may be the rig
Terry Lambert wrote:
If a legacy application stops working because a system changes,
it's the fault of the system doing the changing, not the fault of
the people back in 1984 who didn't know ANSI was going to bung-up
the C language until their application no longer worked.
There has to be some a
Bruce Evans wrote:
> > There has to be some allowance for the continuity of code; it
> > can't just be orphaned instantaneously, without some warning
> > from the system vendor.
>
> A warning was given here more than 4 years ago:
[ ... ]
This was a commit log message; that's very different than
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > This patch also affects the IA64 and Alpha, as well as just the SPARC.
> > >
> > > It took a lot of discussion, but it seems to me that the problem is
> > > that the prototypes in sco
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > A technical reason for not inlining some of them is that they may need
> > to interact with signal handling.
>
> I don't see how this is related. The only advantage of not inlining
> is the ability to declare the functions as weak so that they can be
> overridden. In al
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:12:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> To my mind, this is a problem to address *after* the 5.0 release;
> one hopes that the ports compilation issues will be addressed
> *before* the 5.0 release.
We tag in 2 days. Forget about 5.0-R. The chance of breaking more
than t
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Ok. I'm now going to throw (an interpretation of) your own words into
> the mix and let you decide how you want to prioritize them.
I *live* to be hung on my own petard... go for it! 8-).
> You said that FreeBSD on different platforms should not cause variation in the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:42:24PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > Some configure scripts may check for for compatibility
> > with SunOS/Solaris. I doubt they will check
>
> And here's the reason why. The SPARC platform for FreeBSD will need
> to be sensitive to the fact that people will p
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:21:59PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > This part is what makes me opt for moving the prototypes to the
> > MD header. These functions are trivial most of the time that
> > inlining them makes sense. I don't see why other platforms can't
> > or won't inline in the futur
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> This part is what makes me opt for moving the prototypes to the
> MD header. These functions are trivial most of the time that
> inlining them makes sense. I don't see why other platforms can't
> or won't inline in the future.
I think so, too, but it depends on the hardwa
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > This patch also affects the IA64 and Alpha, as well as just the SPARC.
> >
> > It took a lot of discussion, but it seems to me that the problem is
> > that the prototypes in scope aren't in scope when the wrong include
> > file is i
Bruce Evans wrote:
> The prototypes are machine-independent, so they are correctly placed
> in . This has the technical problem that it is difficult
> to implement declared functions as inlines (*), so we use an ugly
> i386 ifdef in to prevent them being declared.
In fact, this is exactly the pr
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 07:59:30PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > > The synopsis section of our manpage clearly states the inclusion
> > > of . That header file includes a machine dependent
> > > counterpart . On alpha, ia64 and sparc64
> > > is e
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 07:59:30PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > The synopsis section of our manpage clearly states the inclusion
> > of . That header file includes a machine dependent
> > counterpart . On alpha, ia64 and sparc64
> > is empty with the exception of the
> > inclusion of .
> >
> >
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> This patch also affects the IA64 and Alpha, as well as just the SPARC.
>
> It took a lot of discussion, but it seems to me that the problem is
> that the prototypes in scope aren't in scope when the wrong include
> file is included.
Right. It is mainly
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:27:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > Therefore, it seems to me, that the correct place to put them is in
> > the header (the other alternative was the
> > header; this seemed wrong to me, but I'm willing
> > to rero
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:27:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Therefore, it seems to me, that the correct place to put them is in
> > the header (the other alternative was the
> > header; this seemed wrong to me, but I'm willing
> > to reroll the patch, if there's a
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:27:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Therefore, it seems to me, that the correct place to put them is in
> > the header (the other alternative was the
> > header; this seemed wrong to me, but I'm willing
> > to reroll the patch, if there's a
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:27:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Therefore, it seems to me, that the correct place to put them is in
> the header (the other alternative was the
> header; this seemed wrong to me, but I'm willing
> to reroll the patch, if there's a lot of disagreement over this
This patch also affects the IA64 and Alpha, as well as just the SPARC.
It took a lot of discussion, but it seems to me that the problem is
that the prototypes in scope aren't in scope when the wrong include
file is included.
This is partially a problem with the FreeBSD code, because it's really
n
22 matches
Mail list logo
