Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:20:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: cracauer@cons.org (Martin Cracauer) Cc: marcel@scc.nl, cracauer@cons.org, bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include signal.h Message-ID: <199911170320.UAA07079@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19991115115552.A27870@cons.org> from "Martin Cracauer" at Nov 15, 99 11:55:52 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I moved this to -arch, since we have to make some long-term decisions > here: > > 1) Does FreeBSD prefer to pass information like this as unnamed array > of bytes or as structs with proper fields? As an observer... I think any time there is a contract between the kernel and user space about the layout of a field, it's evil. There are a lot of data interfaces that exist which are very, very bad for the stability of software over upgrades (e.g. "ps", "netstat", et. al.). That said, I think "signal" is an exception in this case, so if there is going to be a data interface for signal, and you are going to reorganize it, at least put a version number field in so that you can do backward compatability the right way (or "at all", for that matter). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911170320.UAA07079>