On March 6, 2016 5:57:23 PM GMT+01:00, Edgar Pettijohn <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On 03/06/16 00:12, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Edgar Pettijohn >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> --- rdist.c.orig Sun Feb 28 15:29:27 2016 >>> +++ rdist.c Sun Feb 28 15:32:06 2016 >>> @@ -57,8 +57,7 @@ >>> char *path_remsh = NULL; >>> >>> static void addhostlist(char *, struct namelist **); >>> -static void usage(void); >>> -int main(int, char **, char **); >>> +__dead void usage(void); >> Why remove the 'static'? >> >> >> Does anyone know if the gcc community has settled on a Best Practice >> for where to place attributes relative to storage specifiers such as >> 'static'? I.e., which of these is considered better by the gcc 5.x+ >> community: >> attribute((noreturn)) static void foo(void); >> static attribute((noreturn)) void foo(void); >> ? >> >> We have an ugly mix of those and others currently. >> >> >>> - (void) fprintf(stderr, >>> + fprintf(stderr, >> IMO, removing casts to void like this are an all-or-none affair. >> >> I think I was the last dev still using rdist. Since 5.8 I've almost >> completely switched to rsync. Maybe the diff to apply in this case >is >> to usr.bin/Makefile, removing rdist and rdistd. >> >> Anyone still *using* rdist?
I really try to use it to sync my ~ dotfiles but the configuration is as intuitive as that of sudo. As much as I like having that kind of tool in base, maybe it isn't all that useful anymore. /Alexander >> >> >> Philip Guenther >> >/etc/daily > >if configured to do so that is.
