On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 02:53:48AM +0100, Steve Fairhead wrote:
> Denis Doroshenko said:
> > So how do you specify that a function should be visible only to the
> > local compilation unit? Or, how do you keep others from using your
> > locally-scoped (but not declared static) function in a globa
Denis Doroshenko said:
> So how do you specify that a function should be visible only to the
> local compilation unit? Or, how do you keep others from using your
> locally-scoped (but not declared static) function in a global context?
>> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hi
On 5/31/06, Brett Lymn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:55:14PM +0300, Denis Doroshenko wrote:
>
> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hide for what reason?
It's called lexical scoping - it has nothing really to do with
security more to do with preventing
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:55:14PM +0300, Denis Doroshenko wrote:
>
> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hide for what reason?
>
It's called lexical scoping - it has nothing really to do with
security more to do with preventing namespace pollution. Clearly you
have never wri
On 5/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:29:58AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Static has it's uses however for some
> reason the (open source) world at large seem not to understand
> what they are. Same is true with typedef, it has its uses too but
>
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:29:58AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> My answer is correct. It is not my fault that you don't have a
> clue about programming. Static has it's uses however for some
> reason the (open source) world at large seem not to understand
> what they are. Same is true with ty
On 5/26/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No sarcasm. If you've clashes, the linker will tell you. But if you
make everything static, you may using the same name for different
things without noticing, and this *may* be confusing when reading
the code.
That's a very reasonable expl
Original message from "Diego Giagio" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > 1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry
> > points.
>
> Even for user-level code?
If you are thinking there is a difference between kernel code & userland code,
no. Compilers compile code based upon
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:59:51AM -0300, Diego Giagio wrote:
> >Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
>
> I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was wrong. I strongly apologize.
No sarcasm. If you've clashes, the linker will tell you. But if you
make everything static, you may using the sam
On 5/26/06, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wow. this is just about the most offensive thing i've ever seen on list. that's
not to say it should be censored ;).
I wrongly interpreted Marco's statement, and shot him badly.
all this from someone who spends time pointing finding ho
On 5/26/06, Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And Marco was explaining why he (and probably other OpenBSD devs)
don't use static: name clashes. static makes things more difficult to
debug, and having 50 different static functions named the same thing
could get pretty confusing in large pr
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was wrong. I strongly apologize.
--
DG
On 5/26/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid statements
like that.
Original message
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:14:04 -0300
>From: "Diego Giagio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Static functions in C code
>To: "Marco Peereboom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: misc@openbsd.org
>
>On 5/25/06, Marco Peereb
On 5/26/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how many parse_config functions do you think spamd needs?
It was an example. The point is: is there a reason for not using
static on functions with internal linkage? There's at least one reas
My answer is correct. It is not my fault that you don't have a clue
about programming. Static has it's uses however for some reason the
(open source) world at large seem not to understand what they are. Same
is true with typedef, it has its uses too but mostly it is abused.
I bet you have n
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:14:04AM -0300, Diego Giagio wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
>
> I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
> clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid stat
On 5/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Either because:
1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry
points.
Even for user-level code?
2. most developers don't consider limiting global namespace pollution as
this doesn't frequently hinder dev
On 5/25/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
how many parse_config functions do you think spamd needs?
It was an example. The point is: is there a reason for not using
static on functions with internal linkage? There's at least one reason
to use static: name clashes.
--
DG
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid statements
like that. And I don't mind if you are a OpenBSD developer,
con
Original message from Diego Giagio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> ...
> I have a concern, thought: why most applications don't use the 'static'
> keyword for
> functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't that avoid function name clashes
> when
> developing large programs?
Either because:
1. there are d
On 5/25/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. I have a concern,
thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' keyword for
functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
Diego Giagio wrote:
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. I have a concern,
thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' keyword for
functions with internal linkage ?
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. I have a concern,
thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' keyword for
functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't that avoid function
name clashes when developing larg
24 matches
Mail list logo
