Subject: Re: Non-ANSI ism in system headers
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 04/25/2005 23:54:27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:53:29AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Not really. We used to, but there are too many places in the code that=
> > require gcc extensions.
> That's certainly true of things like the kernel (where we absolutely
> need __asm etc.) but is that true of our headers? (Of course, the
> __rename hack is kind of critical...)
I think that your () indicates we do really need gcc, or at least some of=
the common extensions.
However it would be interesting to see how we do when the header defines=20
for ANSI C are turned on. I suspect we will do much better in that case;=20
the headers assume gcc, but will work in other environments. We will=20
probably still need __rename() though...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----