Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:54:07 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fold -b and -s options patch Message-ID: <p0510121eb87e1a51acd3@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20020130.144343.58436074.imp@village.org> References: <20020130201615.A9151@descent.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <p0510121cb87e117b9add@[128.113.24.47]> <20020130.144343.58436074.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:43 PM -0700 1/30/02, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>In message: <p0510121cb87e117b9add@[128.113.24.47]>
> Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes:
>: If you're picking up code from NetBSD or OpenBSD, then you certainly
>: do not need to add __P()'s to it.
>
>Well, that's a little strange at the moment. NetBSD is agressively
>moving away from __P and embracing the "You must have an ANSI compiler
>to build NetBSD." OpenBSD seems intent on preserving them in some
>cases and killing them in others. Generally speaking...
I was thinking more that there is never a reason we should take code
from either NetBSD or OpenBSD and *add* __P() to it. A separate issue
is whether we should remove __P()'s from code where they still have it
("they" being whoever we are picking up the code from...).
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510121eb87e1a51acd3>