Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 22:01:01 -0700
From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>
To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, audit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: {get,set}progname functions
Message-ID: <20010502050101.8A6E03E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010501234045.S5017@casimir.physics.purdue.edu>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on "Tue, 1 May 2001 23:40:45 -0500"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> writes:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:38:08PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > In the header file? Removing __P() in a standalone program is most
>
> __P() is just syntactic sugar. It won't make a difference as far as
> compiling goes. I just tried it myself.
I meant ``harmless'' as in ``nobody will really care''; I know it
won't make a difference as far as compiling goes.
> > likely harmless. Removing it from header files is probably a
> > different story. Don't get me wrong; I have no use for __P(). I just
> > think nuking it in header files will be met with more resistance than
> > usual. For one, it makes the entire system (well, anything that uses
> > that header file, which is a large chunck of programs) incompatible
> > with a ``K&R Old Testament'' compiler.
>
> Exactly the point.
Fair enough. As I said, I personally don't care. I do, however,
think it shouldn't be done as part of adding {get,set}progname.
Removing __P() in header files is another discussion for another day.
Thanks,
Dima Dorfman
dima@unixfreak.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010502050101.8A6E03E28>