Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:43:51 +1100 (EST)
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>
Cc:        <drosih@rpi.edu>, <deatley@apple.com>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: __P macro question
Message-ID:  <20020203183334.C18280-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020202.153941.85552167.imp@village.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <20020131231008.P4085-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
>             Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes:
> : Don't do it all.  Some people prefer old-style decls, and unlike __P(()),
> : they don't involve any preprocessor hackery; they are part of ISO C.
>
> >From The last draft of the latest C standard:
>        Introduction
>
>        [#2] Certain features are obsolescent, which means that they
>        may be considered for withdrawal in future revisions of this
>        International  Standard.  They are retained because of their
>        widespread use, but their use in  new  implementations  (for
>        implementation  features)  or  new  programs  (for  language
>        [6.11] or library features [7.26]) is discouraged.
>
>        6.11.4  Function definitions
>
>        [#1] The use of function definitions with separate parameter
>        identifier  and  declaration  lists  (not   prototype-format
>        parameter type and identifier declarators) is an obsolescent
>        feature.
>
> I'm going to the trouble of doing it now because we'll have to do it
> eventually.  It is sufficiently painful that I may stop doing it for
> the larger src.bin, src.sbin directories.

You probably have at least 30 years to change them.  Look at how long
it took to convert K&R code (13 years so far).  I expect code that
assumes the C90 standard will take even longer to convert to C99.
standard to live much longer.  There is much more of it, and fewer
reasons to convert.  Say 15 years.  Then another 15 to convert C99...

> At some point we're going to have to do this, why not now.  I know
> that standard is a bit vague about the timeframe, but I suspect that

It costs too much to convert old (working) code IMO.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020203183334.C18280-100000>