Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:16:55 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggested patches for netinet6/ Message-ID: <y7vd66cv1uw.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <20040412075638.B67293@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20040409042720.A99087@xorpc.icir.org> <y7v7jwlw9ib.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:56:38 -0700, >>>>> Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> said: >> > + is it ok to remove the __P() from the header files, ANSIfy >> > the function declarations and make them static as appropriate ? >> > Of course this ought to be done as a separate step. >> >> I myself do not have a strong opinion on this. However, these files >> would also be shared with other BSDs via KAME snaps, and if this >> change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future >> synchronization between KAME and BSDs. > ok, I am just unclear if we periodically import KAME sources in the > tree and then reapply freebsd changes (trying to keep the latter > as small as possible) or someone from time to time looks at > relevant changes in the KAME tree and patches the freebsd version > accordingly. In the latter case, ANSIfying the code would have little > impact on the people porting back the patches, yet would help a lot > in using stricter compiler checks. Out of curiosity (as a novice compiler user), could you be more specific on how it helps with stricter compiler checks to remove __P()? For example, what kind of checks does interfere with __P()? JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vd66cv1uw.wl>