From owner-freebsd-audit Tue May 1 22: 1: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2A437B423 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:01:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from spike.unixfreak.org (spike [63.198.170.139]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6E03E28; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:01:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Will Andrews , audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: {get,set}progname functions In-Reply-To: <20010501234045.S5017@casimir.physics.purdue.edu>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on "Tue, 1 May 2001 23:40:45 -0500" Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 22:01:01 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010502050101.8A6E03E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Will Andrews 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