Subject: Re: Compiling NetBSD with another compiler.
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Aleksey Cheusov <email@example.com>
Date: 10/15/2007 20:36:08
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 05:33:02PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
>> Just because you ALREADY do this for many years. Actually EVERY macro
>> definition in system headers is a BAD NAME.
All you poing that definitions I mentioned are a part of one standard
or another. But they was JUST EXAMPLES. There are a lot of other definitions
in system header files not mentioned anywhere at all.
So, EVERY macro definition is "bad name" when we write in C,
even it is standardized.
> The way you are suggesting we implement function renaming would
> violate that rule.
The way I suggested implements support for "all other" compilers
without any problems for almost all programs. Again, 99.99% of programs
doesn't use "stat" members in structures, doesn't use "#undef stat" etc.
Even if lcc/tcc etc. are just a toy and doesn't provide results
comparable with gcc, NetBSD user should (in my opinition) have ability
to play with them and probably improve them in the future
to support cleverer support
for function renaming. But now all these compilers
just don't work.
Note, that I didn't touch gcc renaming as it is implemented now.
Of course it is better than #define.
I know how to make them work for me without tens of headers.
Just a few dirty hacks... But I don't think this is a good solution.
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.