Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:15:04 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric_van_gyzen@dell.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Subject: Re: sys/net/radix.h: #define Free(p) for user-land Message-ID: <20131008141504.GA22563@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5252D7F7.3030709@dell.com> References: <5252D7F7.3030709@dell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:49:11AM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
E> The user-land definition of the Free() macro in sys/net/radix.h is
E> rather inconvenient. I work on a large C++ code-base, where several
E> classes define Free() functions. This header file gets indirectly
E> included in a few modules (via nested #includes), so we have to #undef
E> Free to work around this macro definition.
E>
E> Ideally, radix.h would define a more unique name, such as R_Free(). If
E> I were using a C code-base, you could say the same about my code, but
E> it's C++, and Free() is already well qualified by classes and/or namespaces.
E>
E> Is this Free() macro considered a well-defined, widely known, and
E> therefore mandatory part of the API, or could it be renamed to something
E> more unique? Alternatively, could it be changed to an inline function
E> definition, so as not to conflict with declarations in other
E> namespaces? If any of these is possible, I'll gladly provide the
E> blindingly trivial patch, although I don't have a commit bit.
E>
E> Finding in-tree consumers of this macro is difficult, due to its generic
E> name. Its counterparts--R_Malloc and R_Zalloc--only appear in
E> sys/net/{radix,route,rtsock}.c (on head). The recent ipfilter update
E> removed the only [potential] in-tree user-land consumer.
The easiest way to find consumers would be to build test the trivial patch :)
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131008141504.GA22563>