In article <200008090850.e798oSF01286@saruman.ics.muni.cz>
dolecek@ibis.cz writes:

> > The boot programs are not necessarily compiled by the toolchain in NetBSD.
> > I don't think depending on gcc is a good thing.
> 
> What makes it depend on gcc ?

ISO C90 doesn't have inline functions.

Okay, it seems to work since __inline is deleted in <sys/cdefs.h>,
but I don't like a ``header file'' which have functions. :)

> > Hmm, bootverbose and bootquiet are not variables and
> > variable-like macros might be confusing.
> > 
> > Isn't it enough to use "boothowto & AB_xxx" everywhere?
> 
> There is already previous art WRT this in FreeBSD and I belive BSDi.
> It also hides an implementation details a bit and is slighly more
> obvious.

I don't think these definition necessary;
we don't have "bootsingle" or "bootaskname".

Okay, I would agree to have such a definition,
the all_lower_case names are wrong.

	bootverbose = 1;

seems natural, but causes an error.
Use ALL_UPPER_CASET names instead.
-- 
ITOH, Yasufumi <itohy@netbsd.org>
# Away 'til Aug. 21