From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 5 11:16:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE9B37B416 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA5JFTP78042; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:15:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Lyndon Nerenberg Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Idea for project: Make cpp do unifdef service... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:48:16 MST." <200111051848.fA5ImG0H012663@atg.aciworldwide.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 20:15:29 +0100 Message-ID: <78040.1004987729@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200111051848.fA5ImG0H012663@atg.aciworldwide.com>, Lyndon Nerenberg writes: >> >Concidering that cpp is vendor software, there would need to be a strong >> >case for it. What is wrong with just fixing unifdef(1) itself? >> >> Nothing, apart from the fact that it would be much more work. >> >> I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to get the GCC crew to >> adopt a patch which added functionality to cppp. > >Where does this leave people using alternate C compilers (e.g lcc)? unifdef is not something you use often so I don't see the issue... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message