Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:54:58 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/led led.h Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.1.20040511194832.03e5e988@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20040511181554.GA13486@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20040510115040.0C9B516A53A@hub.freebsd.org> <20040511100208.C75906@root.org> <20040511181554.GA13486@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
At 19:15 11/05/2004, David O'Brien wrote: >On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:02:59AM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: >> Do we even want __FBSDID in .h files? It doesn't seem to make sense since >> it's not a compilation unit (i.e. no linkage). > >It actually does make sense, as a header's contents does wind up in a .o >eventually :-) And header contents can be the cause of problems as much >as a .c file. There is no problem having multiple __FBSDID in either >a.out or ELF objects. However, there are problems with having a header file's __FBSDID tags end up in a several binaries. Quite apart from the resulting bloat, most changes to header files don't actually result in many binaries being modified; including compilable $Id$ tags in the headers would result in lots of spurious binary changes. This would make me (and anyone who uses FreeBSD Update) very unhappy. Colin Percivalhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.1.0.6.1.20040511194832.03e5e988>