On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:28:24AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:51:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Now, I'll grant that large parts of X11 predate the C standards, but > > that's no excuse for ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't > > exist. There should be a plan in place for dealing with this sort of > > thing. > OK, so let me dictate something on behalf of the XSF and X upstream and > make existing, long-accepted practice absolutely clear: Let me repeat, "long-accepted practice" is no excuse for ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exist. (And it may be long-accepted, but it's not very widely accepted, or the ISO C committees wouldn't have forbidden it.) > The use of a preceding underscore in functions, macros, variable names > and/or other symbols in X code denotes internalisation, What part of "this code is relying on undefined behavior" don't you understand? > and MUST NOT be depended on by any other library. I agree, depending on undefined behavior is foolish. Both outside *and* inside of X. So technically, what we have here is two bugs. One against OpenMotif for depending on X internal symbols (symbols with mandatorily undefined behavior, at that). And one against X upstream for code with undefined behavior. After fifteen years(!) there should be a plan for dealing with this sort of thing! I'm not blaming you, I know you're not responsible, but geeze! Even the BSDs only took five or six years to terms with ISO C, and they started out convinced it was a AT&T plot! :) -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
