Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:26:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?fran=E7ai_s?= <romapera15@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-drivers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What are the codes that contain the marcos that are created directly or the .word directives? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1610101443570.2559@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <CAK_6RwfED1tMBLLaArBjS7Uq2PHk3YAsa3YH%2BmPS37=c%2ByKaVQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAK_6RwfED1tMBLLaArBjS7Uq2PHk3YAsa3YH%2BmPS37=c%2ByKaVQ@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, françai s wrote: > It has come to my attention the following: > > "The minority of FreeBSD developers either create a macro expands to > something like ".word <foo> “ or sometimes the .word <foo> is just hard > coded inline when there’s only going to be one of them, sometimes expose > them both in assembly and in C code, in which case what we do varies a bit > to accommodate the different language’s syntax. It is rare, but has > happened, that we only expose it to C code. https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/57961/ https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2016-October/273948.htmlhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1610101443570.2559>