Subject: Re: Non-ANSI ism in system headers
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Perry E. Metzger <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/26/2005 01:53:29
Bill Studenmund <> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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...)