From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 30 2:47: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C97037B402; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za) by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VsJM-000Gdv-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:49:52 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Michael Smith Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __P macro question In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:34:21 PST." <200201301034.g0UAYLb01598@mass.dis.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:49:52 +0200 Message-ID: <63978.1012387792@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> 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 On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:34:21 PST, Michael Smith wrote: > Actually, eliminating __P() will have little or no effect on merge > activity. It's a headerfile construct, typically only found in function > prototype blocks. The sort of noise that would be generated by removing > it is fairly trivially identified and ignored, compared to any of the > other, massively intrusive changes that are going on. So then it's just a case of unnecessary deltas for -STABLE cvsup users. Or is there an argument against that as well? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message