Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:41:10 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au>, phk@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reinstatement of CIRCLEQ Message-ID: <20010103124110.L86630@argon.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <200101031724.f03HOHq04000@mobile.wemm.org>; from peter@netplex.com.au on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:24:17AM -0800 References: <200101031259.f03CxvY19161@dungeon.home> <200101031724.f03HOHq04000@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ moved to -arch since this is really the correct location for it ] On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:24:17AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Put your complaints about CIRCLEQ in the manual page, and people can choose > > based on facts. All this commit does is reduce code portability. > > I tend to agree, for what it is worth. CIRCLEQ() is an expected part of > the 4.4BSD API and an expected part of <sys/queue.h>. We dont have to use > it, but I feel it is a mistake to nuke an API that is expected to be there. I've never read Knuth's book and am not particularly knowledgeable about queue(3). But I think that unless a good reason (which I have not seen yet) is given for why CIRCLEQ() was nuked, it should be put back. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any kind of move like this in the NetBSD or OpenBSD camps. So this might end up biting FreeBSD in the ass someday as far as portability goes. So, why remove CIRCLEQ()? -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010103124110.L86630>