Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:15:07 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, Christian.Gusenbauer@utimaco.co.at, Christian.Gusenbauer@safeconcept.utimaco.co.at, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cdrom boot? Message-ID: <199611222115.OAA15993@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <E0vQxLO-0000fl-00@rover.village.org> from "Warner Losh" at Nov 22, 96 08:16:42 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Isn't there unprotoize in the gcc distribution that does this? Or are
> there things other than the prototypes that are new to Ansi-C that
> will trip you up?
I think you are thinking of "protoize". I think there might be an
unprotoize, but I think the idea of the GCC crowd is to move toward
ANSI code, not away.
Depending on the compiler and the code, you may see problems with
const, volatile, and structure assignments. There are also problems
with agregate initialization of structure arrays (it works in K&R using
"{" based scoping, but fails in GCC).
Going *to* ANSI, you will see problems with the optimizer assuming
that it can promote things to register if they are not marked volatile;
this is a real problem for things like signal handlers which set state
(any external reference in a signal handler is, by definition, a
volatile reference; silly to have to explicitly mark each datum,
isn't it.. ;-)).
Actually, you're probably in a better position to documnet FreeBSD
dependencies on semantics than I am, since you're the BCC user...
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611222115.OAA15993>