From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Sep 26 18:37:29 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD146A09661; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:37:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6F9326; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:37:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC256139E; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:37:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9 From: Jonathan Anderson In-Reply-To: <55C09869.2040605@selasky.org> Cc: Ed Schouten , Bruce Evans , John-Mark Gurney , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C371C1F-8758-4B31-A4D3-CF3D1A32DF9D@FreeBSD.org> References: <201508020022.t720MFqp023071@repo.freebsd.org> <20150802145434.V1128@besplex.bde.org> <55C09869.2040605@selasky.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:37:29 -0000 X-Original-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:00:03 -0230 X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:37:29 -0000 > On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Hans Petter Selasky = wrote: >=20 > Wouldn't the argument be the same for queue.3 . Once C-compilers = finally decide to compile time support queues, we should throw queue.3 = aswell? Sure! Not right away, and not in a way that causes unnecessary churn, = but if there are benefits (e.g., better optimizations, better standards = compliance) and a diversity of compilers support a new C feature in both = our stable branches and the ports tree (for lots of architectures), then = why not? (note: by =E2=80=9Cdiversity=E2=80=9D, I don=E2=80=99t mean =E2=80=9CClang= and GCC support it on amd64 but none of the vendor toolchains for other = important architectures do=E2=80=9D) There are lots of things like this, where FreeBSD folk historically = said, =E2=80=9CK&R/C89/C99/C11 doesn=E2=80=99t provide feature X, so we = need to write some macros to do it ourselves.=E2=80=9D That=E2=80=99s = great, FreeBSD was ahead of its time, but once the C standard catches = up, isn=E2=80=99t it good to hew to the standard wherever it=E2=80=99s = practical to do so? stdatomic.h, _Generic, _Noreturn, static = assertions... the language is growing lots of useful features. = Wouldn=E2=80=99t it be good to adopt them when we can and trim = non-standard code? Cheers, Jon -- jonathan@FreeBSD.org