Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:05:29 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, bde@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: removing support for ICC?? Message-ID: <20121108145742.J1412@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgkyfaJjB=zU2qXvahuhMqzKSm2u72WehFVoJqNKSzxsVg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgmTGsg6JMp5tswDGE4TZNcjirMJ8aiKLcSfd-ehbp_WYg@mail.gmail.com> <20121107221730.000017c1@unknown> <CAF6rxgkyfaJjB=zU2qXvahuhMqzKSm2u72WehFVoJqNKSzxsVg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 7 November 2012 16:17, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:58:45 -0500 Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Is there any reason to continue to keep the legacy __INTEL_COMPILER >>> conditional includes around? >> >> Is there a reason to remove them from cdefs.h? There aren't a lot of >> them, they don't obfuscate things, they are not in the way of improving >> things, they don't make the existing stuff harder to read. > > ... > >> cdefs.h is not only used in the kernel, but also in the userland. >> Anything from userland which includes cdefs.h and may also compile on >> other operating systems benefits from keeping this support in cdefs.h. > > I just noticed this ancient stuff in src and decided to clean it up. > > Since it is clearly needed, I'll drop it. Not ancient and not clearly needed, but has a mother. It is certainly unclean (has mounds of style bugs). There is lots of ancient stuff (to support pre-C90 compilers) in cdefs.h. This is really ancient, but more likely needed, since it is for not just 1 compiler. This is mostly cleaner (actually in KNF). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121108145742.J1412>