From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 10 20:07:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D567B16A419 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:07:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43B3713C45A for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:07:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 18503 invoked by uid 399); 10 Jan 2008 20:07:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2008 20:07:33 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47867B03.9060205@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:07:31 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <200801081908.m08J8wIs094059@repoman.freebsd.org> <200801082039.18671.max@love2party.net> <20080109170850.GA27993@dragon.NUXI.org> <4785058B.1050507@errno.com> <20080109201424.GA4969@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <478531AC.5030303@errno.com> <20080110085803.H66908@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080110085803.H66908@fledge.watson.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Peter Jeremy , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, Max Laier , Sam Leffler Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 frag6.c icmp6.c in6.c in6_ifattach.c in6_pcb.c in6_proto.c in6_rmx.c in6_src.c ip6_input.c ip6_mroute.c ip6_output.c mld6.c nd6.c nd6_nbr.c nd6_rtr.c raw_ip6.c udp6_usrreq.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:07:34 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > In the past, we've had several subtle bugs crop up as a result of > changing to ANSI C function prototypes Ok, so isn't the conclusion we should reach here, "Don't do style changes unless you're willing to verify that the resulting binaries are the same before and after?" Do we really need to keep flogging this topic? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection