Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:28:08 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: syscall changes to deal with 32->64 changes. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205081025180.16895-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <200205080320.g483Kpc9002220@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > #ifdef's are a bad idea for this case IMHO, at least in regards to > being able to develop the new ABI without interfering with the > release schedule. I think it is far less dangerous and far more > advantageous to simply give each ABI it's own secondary include > (-I) path (not to mention making the include files far more readable > post-ABI-changes). There is absolutely no need to pollute the include > files with #ifdefs. Yes, this is what I'm expressed in the "performing diffs" phrase :) > Also we should consider the fact that it may take considerably longer > for many ports to become 64-bit time_t safe (not to mention uids, gids, > and so forth). Doing the ABI properly with a compiler option and default > setting would allow unsafe ports to be compiled to the old ABI on > new systems. The power of this capability should not be underestimated. Heh, different ABI in the different ports is the real fun of it. -- Boris Popov http://rbp.euro.ru 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0205081025180.16895-100000>