From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 13 19: 9:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13E137B401; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCCF43E7B; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:09:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 5A575AE265; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:09:45 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Tim Robbins Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Macros in Message-ID: <20021014020945.GI95327@elvis.mu.org> References: <20021014094459.A25812@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021014094459.A25812@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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 * Tim Robbins [021013 16:49] wrote: > Since revision 1.25 of src/include/stdio.h removed the macro versions of > putc() and getc(), is there any reason why we shouldn't go the whole way > and remove the rest of the macros (*_unlocked()) ? > > This would let us make FILE opaque and move the definition of > struct __sFILE into src/lib/libc/stdio/local.h. This would also let us > remove the __sFILEX hack. But don't we want some level of speed for stdio operations even at the expense of some transparency? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message