Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:05:29 +0100
From:      "Pietro Cerutti" <gahr@gahr.ch>
To:        Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de>
Cc:        freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [patch] rename macro parameter list in cpufunc.h
Message-ID:  <20101229080528.GB72669@gahrfit.gahr.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20101228182049.GV61199@alchemy.franken.de>
References:  <20101228132703.GC68770@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <20101228173529.GA38083@alchemy.franken.de> <201012281310.50739.jhb@freebsd.org> <20101228182049.GV61199@alchemy.franken.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2010-Dec-28, 19:20, Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:10:50PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:35:29 pm Marius Strobl wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 02:27:04PM +0100, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >=20
> > > > sys/sparc64/include/cpufunc.h defines macro having a parameter named
> > > > 'xor'. This is a reserved keyword in C++. For this reason, it is
> > > > impossible to use this header in C++ (e.g., by including
> > > > machine/atomic.h).
> > > >=20
> > > > This patch [1] renames these parameters to _xor. Please review and/=
or
> > > > approve (I need an explicit approval in order to commit to src).
> > > >=20
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >=20
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >=20
> > > > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~gahr/cpufunc.h.diff
> > >=20
> > > Hrm, I really don't like the inconsistency only renaming "xor"
> > > introduces, rototilling the whole file also seems excessive though
> > > (also that would get it closer to style(9)). Would wrapping it in
> > > __BEGIN_DECLS or something like that work as an alternate solution?
> >=20
> > Not for a reserved word like 'class'.  Maybe you could rename 'xor' to=
=20
> > something else like 'mask' instead?
> >=20
>=20
> The description of the assembly syntax uses "xor" so I'd prefer to keep
> the name of the parameter close to that, I'd be okay with using f.e.
> "xorval" though.

Well, I guess the choice of the name is up to you, and xorval kind of
makes sense to me. Would you like to commit it or I do?

--=20
Pietro Cerutti
The FreeBSD Project
gahr@FreeBSD.org

PGP Public Key:
http://gahr.ch/pgp

--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk0a68cACgkQwMJqmJVx944PFgCg08Eweh+BhMXAglriWEtrNKRI
rSIAoNX0Y+zNVOoYEVMps2R57XqYCw92
=uREk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101229080528.GB72669>