On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:06:50PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > 2013/5/19 Stefan Farfeleder <stef...@freebsd.org>: > > Shouldn't we fix lint and our headers to use a different macro name? One > > starting with __? > > Fixing lint: yes. Changing our macros to use a different name: no.
> The reason why we had __volatile, __inline, etc. in the first place, > was because adding definitions for volatile and inline directly would > be against the standard, as these words can be used freely in <C99. > C11 only added keywords starting with _[A-Z], which is reserved by all > the older standards, meaning we are completely free to define them in > any way we like. > > This specific breakage was unrelated to the naming of the keyword. The > breakage existed, because existing tools do a build with -Dlint set. > Because we use _Thread_local in our own header files already > (runetype.h, I think), this caused a variable declared in a header > file to be of the wrong kind (TLS vs non-TLS). > > In my opinion we should not add __[a-z] definitions for things that > are part of C11. Doing this only makes our code less easily exportable > to other systems. Hi Ed, I think you misunderstood what I meant. We now have quiet a few occurrences of `#ifdef lint' or equivalent in /usr/include. I think those should be changed to `#ifdef __lint' to allow application code to do #define lint foo #include <header.h> which is perfectly fine POSIX code (at least to my knowledge) and should not change the behaviour of the included header. Stefan _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
