Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:46:33 +0100 From: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers Message-ID: <CAOfDtXMsmDa2XaZ0qmMKZxF5xagotw5EwaU=7y_GUxKLhaJ9OQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <B188597B-4446-4EAB-A9BD-D9EBBEB8B1D7@bsdimp.com> References: <CAOfDtXPX1Rv9T7%2B1jYQbkM14tRY7mqgCzPcUqvHxFaRObbwvEg@mail.gmail.com> <B188597B-4446-4EAB-A9BD-D9EBBEB8B1D7@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/11/16 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>: > My second reaction was why not have > > #ifndef __FreeBSD_kernel__ > #define __FreeBSD_kernel__ __FreeBSD__ > #endif > > in sys/param.h and then just change __FreeBSD__ to __FreeBSD_kernel__ in = the headers that are affected? =C2=A0But I'm not quite sure what effects th= at would have on your environment. I'm fine with this. > Why do you think people wouldn't be fond of the __FreeBSD_kernel__ being = defined? See archived discussion: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-July/035721.html particularly this mail in which you participated: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-July/035823.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXMsmDa2XaZ0qmMKZxF5xagotw5EwaU=7y_GUxKLhaJ9OQ>