From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 29 0:42:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from evilpete.dyndns.org (12-232-26-46.client.attbi.com [12.232.26.46]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D196F37B40D for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.wemm.org ([10.0.0.3]) by evilpete.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4T7gH162862 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:42:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F30380A; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:42:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __STDC__ removal? In-Reply-To: <20020526222546.GD43189@elvis.mu.org> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:42:17 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020529074217.07F30380A@overcee.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Alfred Perlstein wrote: > NetBSD is nuking almost all __STDC__ usages because it's always > defined. Do we want to do the same? The exception I've seen > is for assembler files where old style C is needed to avoid > conflicts. Umm, do we need it there in asm headers? We do not use the traditional cpp for our assembler files. I would be suprised if we needed it. In fact, I would be suprised if we build with -traditional any more. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message