>>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:56:38 -0700, >>>>> Luigi Rizzo <rizzo_at_icir.org> 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. jinmei_at_isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jpReceived on Mon Apr 12 2004 - 21:16:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:50 UTC