On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 04:59:41PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > On 25/08/2019 16:48, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 04:43:51PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > > On 25/08/2019 15:39, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > There is no technical reason really for prefering void * > > > Having to write code to exclusively deal with NetBSD's different API to > > > compile without warnings sounds like a pretty good technical reason to me. > > > > That's not a technical reason. It's a social reason. > > And your reason for being anti-social is?
This whole discussion about breaking compatibility with NetBSD for the sake of better compatibility with other systems. It's a weak argument and as I said, there is no technical reason for why void * should be preferred. Ultimately, from the perspective of the system interface, it is an arbitrary value. If anything, it should be something like uint64_t, but that is most definitely an ABI break for little gain. What we do have now in the tree is a number of iterations on trying to "improve" things that actually broke more than they fixed. Which is exactly the reason why I asked about just going back to the known state of being compatible with older NetBSD releases. Joerg
