From owner-freebsd-commit  Sat Oct 21 18:39:05 1995
Return-Path: owner-commit
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id SAA20438
          for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:39:05 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id SAA20419
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:39:02 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id SAA20397
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:38:59 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA20387
          ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:38:55 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA26927; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:37:16 -0700
To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
cc: Steven Wallace <swallace@ece.uci.edu>,
        Bruce Evans <bde@freefall.freebsd.org>,
        CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org,
        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SYSCALL IDEAS [Was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sysv_msg.c sysv_sem.c sysv_shm.c] 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 21 Oct 1995 16:54:51 PDT."
             <199510212354.QAA00601@precipice.shockwave.com> 
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:37:16 -0700
Message-ID: <26924.814325836@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-commit@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> While I realize this is a bit against the philosophy that some of the
> team members hold,  which is that we should not rely on gcc-type
> functionality, I'd actually prefer to see things like SCARG and

Just FYI, it's never been mine.  I routinely use structure
initializers that only gcc grocks, and have even been known to do the
occasional:

	{
		char foo[n];
		..
	}

To do the job of alloca..  Not that I use the latter construct very
often - I generally just use alloca directly, but the point is that if
it's especially convenient to use gcc features, I use them.  gcc now
enjoys the deserved or undeserved privilege (take your pick) of being
ubiquitous.  I can't imagine porting to (or being interested in) any
platform that did not support gcc, and if it did not then porting gcc
would be my first task anyway!

I say if advanced features make the code demonstrably cleaner, use
them.

						Jordan