From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 30 2:13:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (dhcp45-21.dis.org [216.240.45.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5925D37B400 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:13:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0UADib01384; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:13:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200201301013.g0UADib01384@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __P macro question In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:59:28 +0200." <63256.1012384768@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:13:44 -0800 From: Michael Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Plenty of innocent electrons have been wasted in the last 10 years > > trying to prove that that the set "Terrys problems", is the most > > important subset of the set "The FreeBSD projects problems", but > > so far no evidence has been found to support this claim. > > As much as I don't like the look of the __P() construct, surely it's > worthwhile if it means our code is easier to port to odd little embedded > systems? Speaking as someone that's actually done this, rather than just blathered about it, __P() is about the least of your worries. The issue as Terry defends it is almost entirely irrelevant. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message