From owner-freebsd-audit Fri Jun 1 14: 8:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from coffee.q9media.com (coffee.q9media.com [216.94.229.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3582A37B423; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:08:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@q9media.com) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (vega.tct.net [216.94.230.13]) by coffee.q9media.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f51LHYL89393; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:17:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@q9media.com) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:08:30 -0400 Subject: Removing __P() (was Re: whois(1) patch) From: Mike Barcroft To: Cc: Mike Heffner Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Organization: q9 media Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [Moved to -arch, BCC'd to -audit] On 5/31/01 6:26 PM, Mike Heffner at mheffner@novacoxmail.com wrote: > On 31-May-2001 Mike Barcroft wrote: > | > | I originally made the ANSI C change to silence a warning, but is there any > | reason not to bring the code up to ANSI C spec? Is it likely that anyone > | will need to compile whois with a K&R compiler? > > It's not likely, but I'm not sure on what the consensus is on ANSI-fication. > Technically, style(9) says it shouldn't be done in this case, but people > (myself included) have been removing K&R support in small patches like this > one. I think there was also talk of doing a full sweep to remove __P. Does anyone have any objections to removing __P() and converting prototypes to ANSI C, as part of binary cleaning up/auditing? Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message