Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:15:29 -0500 From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.hda.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: controversial fix or some errors breaking LINT Message-ID: <20020228101529.A3139@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271318350.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:27:48PM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271318350.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > A while ago I proposed the following patch: > > /* > * Note: the "volatile" below does not REQUIRE that the argument be > * volatile, but rather ony says that it is OK to use a volatile * i > * there. Same for the const. I know a const volatile sounds strange > * but it only indicates that either is acceptable. > */ > void bcopy __P((volatile const void *from, volatile void *to, size_t > len)); I object to keeping the same name. Change it to "bvcopy" or something. Yes, this is the kernel, but same names should imply same semantics. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020228101529.A3139>