Subject: Re: proposed new KNF [was Re: Time to update KNF?]
To: Chris Torek <torek@BSDI.COM>
From: Christian E. Hopps <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/18/2000 21:23:06
Chris Torek <torek@BSDI.COM> writes:

> >I've used more than 1 compiler that the __P() stuff _doesn't_ work the
> >way one wants it to (the ansi-std doesn't guarantee that it will).
> It sure does.  If you have a C89 (or C99) conforming compiler,
> the __P macro will definitely work.  This is why 3.8.3 (6.8.3
> in ISO 9899:1990, I presume) talks about *matching* close parentheses.

I don't have the standard on hand.  The problem I had was the following.

If you used k&r definitions the compiler assumed arguments where passed
as ints unless larger.  The same compilers in other files using the
prototypes would pass arguments smaller than integers if possible.

Perhaps thats just a problem with __P() in general. If so then I change
my reason for not using it to the above. :)