Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:22:44 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: <net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: IPV6/KAME/protosw integration cleanup Message-ID: <20010817161114.S34202-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108161057240.18201-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > I will not be doing any changes that affect them, Though I may still add > > > the prototype definitions in protsw.h as that's a generally useful thing > > > to do. > > > > I think those are the least useful of your changes. They are certainly > > the most intrusive if the function typedefs are actually used. > > yes but the rest of them have been argued against by the KAME folk > and I have agreed to let them do it.. > (which changes in specific terms, are you refering to?) Function typedefs. > The good thing about the typedefs is that > if you change them, then you automatically change all teh prototypes that > use them, So there is no benefit if no prototypes use them. > which means that when you compile, you get failures on all teh > functions that mismatch their prototypes which means that you HAVE to fix > all the mismatching functions. Without them you just get warning messages > on the structure initialisations, which you can easily miss, or ignore.. They aren't easy to miss :-). You see them once every time you build a kernel with them configured. I think it's just a gcc "feature" that mismatches in initializers are only warnings. Warnings for initializers can be suppressed using casts. That is really evil (worse than varargs :-) but we do it for syscalls and vops. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010817161114.S34202-100000>