Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-09-26 Thread Jonathan Anderson
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > Wouldn't the argument be the same for queue.3 . Once C-compilers finally > decide to compile time support queues, we should throw queue.3 aswell? Sure! Not right away, and not in a way that causes unnecessary

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-22 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:17 +0200: On 08/04/15 19:10, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200: My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros because they isolate the

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-21 Thread Ed Schouten
2015-08-21 8:17 GMT+02:00 Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org: Here is one more argument against using _Static_assert(): According to http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert; _Static_assert is C11 syntax only, and we compile the kernel using -std=iso9899:1999 according to

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-21 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On 08/04/15 19:10, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200: My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros because they isolate the compiler into a consistent and coherent API. Except that we now have a consistent

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-04 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On 08/04/15 12:03, Ed Schouten wrote: Hi Bruce, 2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evansb...@optusnet.com.au: This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard interface _Static_assert(). _Static_assert has

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-04 Thread Ed Schouten
2015-08-04 12:48 GMT+02:00 Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org: Once C-compilers finally decide to compile time support queues, we should throw queue.3 aswell? If the API provided by the C standard would be functionally identical and easy to emulate with older compilers (which is the case for

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-04 Thread Ed Schouten
Hi Bruce, 2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au: This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard interface _Static_assert(). _Static_assert has been part of the C standard for

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-04 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ed Schouten wrote: Hi Bruce, 2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au: This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard interface _Static_assert(). _Static_assert

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-04 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200: My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros because they isolate the compiler into a consistent and coherent API. Except that we now have a consistent and coherent API w/ _Static_assert... We

Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9

2015-08-01 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Log: mark this function as deprecated, and put the warning first, since I doubt most people will read to the end... Note the use of sys/cdefs.h for pre-C11 compilers... This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a good