On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:31:20PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Although standard permit this, it will cause lots of programs to break >> here and there and even may cause core dump. I don't think it is what >> everybody wants. Non-inlined versions a) not used nowdays b) must be exact >> as inlined. > > If programs are incorrectly written, and they use inlines, then > that is not our fault :-)
The amount of such programs is extremely big to ignore, even FreeBSD is not 100% clean, not say about ports. Usually ASCII-only people did't notice any side effects because typed 7-bit ASCII. It doesn't mean that the rest of the world don't exists. > The problem with trying to do error checking and other Error checking is permitted by standard too. We do that way traditionally. Nobody wants a core dump on typed char. Ad the PR addressed was about false positives, which would happens without error checking. > esoteric things with inlines is that it exposes our private > parts to the world. You can get arrested for that ;-) There is enough parts already exposed, like __mb_cur_max. Why you don't complain? The goal here was to keep compatibility with old binaries, so why this way is choosed. > How much juice are we really trying to squeeze out of > these inlines anyway? Not sure what you say about. -- http://ache.pp.ru/ _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
