From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Dec 18 04:29:26 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA23524
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 04:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA23518
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 04:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA21859; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:27:11 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: critter.tfs.com: Host localhost.tfs.com didn't use HELO protocol
To: davidg@Root.COM
cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 1995 04:14:03 PST."
             <199512181214.EAA00230@corbin.Root.COM> 
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:27:10 +0100
Message-ID: <21857.819289630@critter.tfs.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> >But anyway, here goes:  I intend to continue to isolate the scope of
> >variables as far as I can get it.  This may from time to time make
> >a custom kernel uncompilable, as my test-set is GENERIC and LINT.
> 
>    Please don't lose sight of the fact that changes like this can very easily
> introduce new bugs. Our linker doesn't complain about multiple declarations
> of a common symbol...so if these exist, making variables that are supposed to
> be common into private/static will introduce "interesting" new bugs.

I am very careful.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.