From nobody Mon May 22 10:00:31 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QPtHR37vDz4TK2F for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 10:00:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QPtHR1FNHz4Hp8 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 10:00:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from [10.36.2.145] (unknown [46.212.121.255]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 591CD260282; Mon, 22 May 2023 12:00:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 12:00:31 +0200 List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arch List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1 Subject: Re: [RFC] An idea for general kernel post-processing automation in FreeBSD Content-Language: en-US To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-arch References: <2EDDC5DC-81C2-4EB8-B729-66F03A8854E4.ref@yahoo.com> <2EDDC5DC-81C2-4EB8-B729-66F03A8854E4@yahoo.com> <6293f06b-927f-432a-3911-808b1d99441b@selasky.org> From: Hans Petter Selasky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4QPtHR1FNHz4Hp8 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/32, country:DE] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 5/22/23 01:07, Mark Millard wrote: > In the C language standard, the original had a status of "no linkage" > and "static storage duration". ("a block scope identifier > for an object declared without the storage-class specifier > extern" leads to the "no linkage" status.) > > The change still has "static storage duration" but now has "internal > linkage" status instead. I'm being cautious about the distinction. > > (I'm looking at ISO/IEC 9899:2011 (E).) > > I've had trouble identifying the match of your wordings to the > language standard, leaving me unsure of the interpretation to > give your wording. > > I've yet to figure out why internal linkage could end up > being required, given how the language specifies things. Hi, If you find something, let me know. I'll let the issue rest for some days. --HPS