From owner-freebsd-commit  Mon Sep 11 19:11:35 1995
Return-Path: commit-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA16411
          for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:11:35 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA16395
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:11:33 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA16381
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:11:31 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA16374
          ; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:11:24 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.34]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA00291; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:10:10 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA03665; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:12:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199509120212.TAA03665@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, pst@shockwave.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vnode_if.sh 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Sep 95 11:50:00 +1000."
             <199509120150.LAA01516@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:12:00 -0700
Sender: commit-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>I'm against continuing the anti-ansi mood
>>we should go to full prototyping asap.
>>no-one makes compilers that can't handle that any more....
>
>I am doing the work to go to full prototyping.  This involved adding
>hundreds, if not thousands, of prototypes (a trivial step) and involves
>fixing thousands, if not tens of thousands, of the type mismatches and
>bogus casts (a not so trivial step).  Minimal support for pre-ansi
>compilers involves using __P(()) in prototype declarations (a trivial
>step), avoiding the use of new-style function declarations (this would
>be too much trouble except most of our code already avoids them).
>Complete support would include casting function args to a correct type
>if the default would be wrong.  I won't attempt that.  Passing 0 for a
>null pointer works on some machines.

   Sounds good, but please don't commit these changes just now. I'm already
having an impossible time bringing in to 2.1 various needed bugfixes. Give me
another week or two, PLEASE.

-DG