Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 23:40:45 -0500
From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>
Cc: audit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: {get,set}progname functions
Message-ID: <20010501234045.S5017@casimir.physics.purdue.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010502043809.3B57D3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>; from dima@unixfreak.org on Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:38:08PM -0700
References: <20010501225758.Q5017@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> <20010502043809.3B57D3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:38:08PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > In the header file? Removing __P() in a standalone program is most __P() is just syntactic sugar. It won't make a difference as far as compiling goes. I just tried it myself. > likely harmless. Removing it from header files is probably a > different story. Don't get me wrong; I have no use for __P(). I just > think nuking it in header files will be met with more resistance than > usual. For one, it makes the entire system (well, anything that uses > that header file, which is a large chunck of programs) incompatible > with a ``K&R Old Testament'' compiler. Exactly the point. -- wca [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE674/NF47idPgWcsURAiXbAJ9qq2rLozMbl7KWxbXhisR//0XpGwCgmHBT Swtoljjkg+lhl6IaCjhYl30= =J0Nj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010501234045.S5017>