From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 29 1:15:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA9837B408 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id D9B1CAE1C1; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 01:15:54 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Peter Wemm Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __STDC__ removal? Message-ID: <20020529081554.GN17045@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020526222546.GD43189@elvis.mu.org> <20020529074217.07F30380A@overcee.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020529074217.07F30380A@overcee.wemm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Peter Wemm [020529 00:42] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > NetBSD is nuking almost all __STDC__ usages because it's always > > defined. Do we want to do the same? The exception I've seen > > is for assembler files where old style C is needed to avoid > > conflicts. > > Umm, do we need it there in asm headers? We do not use the traditional cpp > for our assembler files. I would be suprised if we needed it. In fact, I > would be suprised if we build with -traditional any more. Well then we can nuke it from asm files too! Whee! -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message