Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:14:41 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why isn't __progname declared in a header? Message-ID: <200203241714.g2OHEfXl061582@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <20020325035923.I46460-100000@gamplex.bde.org> ; from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Mon, 25 Mar 2002 04:01:06 %2B1100." References: <20020325035923.I46460-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Next question, what header should it go into? I'm quite happy to do > > > > the work. > > > > > > libc/include/libc_private.h is almost right. > > > > Hmm. It is implemented in csu/*/crt[01].c, so how about > > csu/common/_progname.h? > > Further from being almost right. It would be a new header with very little > in it, and isn't in libc's tree any more than libc's header is in csu's > tree. So what direction do I go in the get it closer to "right"? __progname is implemented in csu/, so it make sense for me to have its header there. Only two files in any other library (lib/libc/gen/[gs]etprogname.c) actually need this information, so it makes sense (to me anyway) for them to have some kind of special case to get it. I don't like a plain declaration, as that makes diverting declarations (more) possible. M -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn 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?200203241714.g2OHEfXl061582>