Milan Jurik <milan.ju...@sun.com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling pí??e v po 03. 05. 2010 v 16:55 +0200:
> > Milan Jurik <milan.ju...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > You may be able to agree with me on better thandards than the ones I
> > > > currently
> > > > use but you will not succeed to let me agree on inferior standards.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, I do not consider ANSI C and other requirements sent by James
> > > Carlson as "inferior". Which is the basic of our disagreement probably.
> > > You can consider ON gate "C style" as not ideal but it is based on years
> > > of experience of many contributors.
> >
> > From your wording, it seems that that you just do not understand me and
> > that you simply missunderstand me because you did never look at my code.
> > All my code makes advantages from ANSI C, most of the code in ON however
> > does not make advantage from ANSI C.
> >
>
> strnlen(s, len)
> register const char *s;
> register size_t len;
>
> I do not see this as good ANSI C.
I am not sure whether you are the right person to discuss this.....
This is the second time where you sent an unrelated reply.
Did you read the mail you replied to?
If you compile the unmodified sources under usr/src/cmd/sh/ you get 262
warnings
for missing prototypes (even if you _disable_ warnings from Sun Studio) and if
you did fix this, you would see about 1000 new warnings caused by incorrect
parameters when calling functions. In addition, the ON version of the sh source
is not 64 bit clean and it will not work in multi-byte locales on other UNIX
systems as the mb*() functions are called making incorrect assumptions on the
behavior of the multibyte support functions.
I always compile all my code with warnings _enabled_ and If you compile my
version
of the Bourne Shell, you see not a single warning although the function
implementations look like (see example from args.c):
int
options(argc, argv)
int argc;
unsigned char **argv;
{
unsigned char *cp;
My version compiles (as mentioned above) without a single warning with Sun
Studio _and_ with the highest warning level from gcc and my version is 64 bit
clean. My version runs on most known platforms and it does so even on
multi-byte locales.
Do you still believe that what you ask me to do is superior to what I already
do?
Do you still believe that I am not using prototypes?
You should face that the only visible effect of "requirements" like the one
mentioned by James is to prevent contributions from people outside of Oracle.
Given the fact that SunOS is supposed to support 64 bit since 1997, it seems
that a lot of code was neglected and not touched since more than 13 years.
If you like to give Solaris a future, you need to allow contributions that
raise the code quality.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
