Subject: Re: Non-ANSI ism in system headers
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 04/26/2005 01:53:29
Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
>> I'm writing an ANSI C compiler front end, and have yet to implement
>> GCC extensions. It shows exactly the same header trace as
>> above, with __signed. I believe it is NetBSD's intent to have their
>> headers compilable with compilers other than GCC?
> 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...)