Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 01:19:52 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include stdio.h src/lib/libc/stdio clrerr.c feof.c ferror.c fileno.c getc.c getchar.c local.h putc.c putchar.c xprintf.c Message-ID: <48223918.4010001@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080507231444.GF32532@elvis.mu.org> References: <200805051603.m45G3rrN089219@repoman.freebsd.org> <200805051637.43073.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080507064013.GU32532@elvis.mu.org> <200805071111.39938.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080507231444.GF32532@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [080507 10:28] wrote: >> On Wednesday 07 May 2008 02:40:13 am Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [080505 13:47] wrote: >>>> On Monday 05 May 2008 03:24:17 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:59:28PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>>> On Monday 05 May 2008 02:40:03 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>>>>> I'm _not_ objecting, just interested in why. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any references to discussions on this? Are we now safe for >>>>>>> future compat or something? >>>>>> Having FILE be opaque broke just about every 'configure' script on the >>>>>> planet. :( >>>>> Either autoconf and friends are _intended_ as impediments to >>>>> portability or they are completely broken by design. >>>> It appears that autoconf only believes a type is real if you can typedef >> it to >>>> another type, cast 0 to a valid pointer to the new typedef'd type, and do >> a >>>> sizeof() of the typdef'd type. The last is where having an opaque type >>>> breaks down for scripts that want to make sure FILE is a real type. >>> >>> Oh c'mon! we're going to revert this needed fix just because of >>> autoconf? >> Pretty much. It appears that FILE has been public for so long that there is a >> lot of code that assumes it can use it. > > I don't think that's really fair, stdio has had adequate accessors > for a long time, if AN(*) application does the wrong thing for long enough > it does not make it right. > > (*) Important note: when considering autoconf scripts, most of the > scripts test's come from a repository of scripts or are carbon > copied from each other. Saying that "all ports are broken" is not > true, it is a single suite of configuration scripts that are broken > and need fixing, then we will be OK. > > We have precident here of hacked autoconf and ports build logic > that automatically "seds" various things in scripts. I think > a few knobs can fix this for us. The offer was a serious one. If you're interested in evaluating the impact of this change on ports then just say the word. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48223918.4010001>