Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:18:02 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add compatibility <sys/io.h> Message-ID: <20120312120436.H1098@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomsZs=P%2BOpGO5UOLcg7Da4wy0hTccF8k63WChRMVjiOvg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXPGPP0reN9NTBw_5%2BNwXZ56Yy0oyx_fH%2BDOvmpc1O%2BQdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmonu_ApSd192cjvsW6k3eNNK4Kz=MmAMe_e=zmwbrS8Ayw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfDtXOCyjga5QHz98Re3jXkefNzB-MbULcAVUQH89ToVLkw9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomsZs=P%2BOpGO5UOLcg7Da4wy0hTccF8k63WChRMVjiOvg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: > I agree we should move them out of the namespace. I'd even suggest > prefixing them with something BSD specific, as two underscores may not > be enough of a hint. No, they are already outside of the user namespace. cpufunc.h is a kernel header that just happens to be abusable in userland. Though I originally intended it to be usable in userland. 2 underscores would make any use undefined, but no more than most uses already are. > That requires some sweeping changes of userland code, but I think it's > for the best. This would be mostly churn in the downwards direction. I just checked the API in old DOS compilers. In Turbo C it is: #include <dos.h> void outportb(int portid, unsigned char value); [outportb is normally a macro that expands to an inline asm function.] So there is no conflict with this API, since its name is different. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120312120436.H1098>