From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Korb To: rittle AT rsch.comm.mot.com Cc: gcc AT gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.0 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:26:00 -0000 Message-id: <37E00F41.AF49518@datadesign.com> References: <10543.937377588@upchuck.cygnus.com> <37DFAD27.3E6A25E3@datadesign.com> <199909152042.PAA29374@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00646.html Loren James Rittle wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > The issue is that stdio.h isn't the only system header under [Free]BSD > that uses the _BSD_VA_LIST_ define. Basically, approximately 10 other > system header files need the same treatment as stdio.h. > > In your opinion, should all those other headers be processed just like > stdio.h? Or, do you need more input on the matter? > > There is another camp that dislikes this approach since they want to > use gcc as the default compiler on the system and really want > _BSD_VA_LIST_ to appear in the /usr/include version of the headers. First off, I am strongly in the camp that says the fewer headers that get secreted off some place the better. In other words, if the standard BSD compiler is GCC, then the standard BSD headers should be compatible with it. >From the perspective that the future will be compatible, the remaining question is what to do on older systems that use _BSD_VA_LIST_. The most straght forward answer is: do that which has the smallest impact while still being certain to not break other implementations. Since I do not know the exact usage of the _BSD_VA_LIST_ token, I hesitate to propose a solution. But the solution should vanish in the next few decades as the old implementations die away :-). In other words, fix the old systems with fixinc and the new ones with source changes. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Korb To: rittle@rsch.comm.mot.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.0 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <37E00F41.AF49518@datadesign.com> References: <10543.937377588@upchuck.cygnus.com> <37DFAD27.3E6A25E3@datadesign.com> <199909152042.PAA29374@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00646.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.l_c5mLjvLHRLDWrpHfcVKtwYRXgffddUzkSSXmfHsXw@z> Loren James Rittle wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > The issue is that stdio.h isn't the only system header under [Free]BSD > that uses the _BSD_VA_LIST_ define. Basically, approximately 10 other > system header files need the same treatment as stdio.h. > > In your opinion, should all those other headers be processed just like > stdio.h? Or, do you need more input on the matter? > > There is another camp that dislikes this approach since they want to > use gcc as the default compiler on the system and really want > _BSD_VA_LIST_ to appear in the /usr/include version of the headers. First off, I am strongly in the camp that says the fewer headers that get secreted off some place the better. In other words, if the standard BSD compiler is GCC, then the standard BSD headers should be compatible with it. >From the perspective that the future will be compatible, the remaining question is what to do on older systems that use _BSD_VA_LIST_. The most straght forward answer is: do that which has the smallest impact while still being certain to not break other implementations. Since I do not know the exact usage of the _BSD_VA_LIST_ token, I hesitate to propose a solution. But the solution should vanish in the next few decades as the old implementations die away :-). In other words, fix the old systems with fixinc and the new ones with source changes.