Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 01:51:15 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio findfp.c Message-ID: <20021031095115.GW24139@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20021031202925.Y8632-100000@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20021031020030.33A952A89D@canning.wemm.org> <20021031202925.Y8632-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [021031 01:25] wrote: > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > alfred 2002/10/30 17:54:27 PST > > > > > > Modified files: > > > lib/libc/stdio findfp.c > > > Log: > > > Make __sF static. This can not be allowed to exist in 5.x. > > > > Heh, I so badly wanted to do this, but couldn't quite work up the nerve. > > You already did, but thought better of it. > > "Fixing" signal handling broke even more things here. Old kernels can no > longer run many new binaries because new binaries use the new sigaction() > syscall just to select the type of signal context passed to signal handlers, > most of which don't care about the type. While this is true and you are correct, I don't see how this reflects negatively on the decision to statisize __sF. The idea it to get rid of this in a fashion that while somewhat aburbt saves us from pain later if we choose to resize the struct FILE (which would cause much weirder breakage). -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021031095115.GW24139>