I'd change this immediatelly using the normal rewrite logic in headers we use for standard versioning. It would be really good to push this into netbsd-9 too.
Jaromir Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 14:14, Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> a écrit : > > In article > <CAEdQ38FPBEFhCTTBKvZFjQbz-B9=gzzw=tuhfprdipoqj3p...@mail.gmail.com>, > Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:17 AM Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 06.08.2019 07:19, Matt Turner wrote: > >> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:06 PM Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:29:27PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> So great, you made your API incompatible with everyone else for zero > >> >>> gain. /o\ > >> >> > >> >> And so forth. > >> >> > >> >> Is there some reason for the snotty attitude? Whether you're right or > >> >> wrong you're not likely to persuade anyone that way. > >> > > >> > Well, yes, actually. It's a waste of my time to deal with useless API > >> > incompatibilities. > >> > > >> > Feel free to disregard my whole email based on the perceived attitude, > >> > if you're unhappy with it. > >> > > >> > I was just trying to do the right thing, and I don't intend to expend > >> > any more effort advocating for this change. It doesn't matter to me > >> > whether you take the suggestion or even whether Mesa works on NetBSD, > >> > but it might matter to you. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > >> > > >> > >> I propose to change the function signatures on the next ABI bump to: > >> > >> int pthread_setname_np(pthread_t, const char * restrict format, ...) > >> __printflike(2, 3); > >> > >> int pthread_attr_setname_np(pthread_attr_t *, const char * restrict > >> format, ...*) __printflike(2, 3); > >> > >> This way we will keep API compat for all the current users and keep > >> compiler checks for safe usage. > >> > >> Personally, I find it convenient to use it like pthread_setname_np(t[i], > >> "thread %d, i) and I would like to keep using it. > > > >FWIW, I think that's a better suggestion than either of mine. I support that. > > Do we have to wait for an API bump for this? Seems pretty harmless. Although > it is probably better to have: > > int pthread_setname_np(pthread_t, const char *); > and > int pthread_fmtname_np(pthread_t, const char * restrict format, ...) > __printflike(2, 3); > > christos >
