Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:20:11 +0400 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio fdopen.c fflush.c fopen.c fseek.c ftell.c fvwrite.c local.h refill.c stdio.c Message-ID: <20010903112009.A5743@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20159.999494813@critter> References: <200109021910.f82JACD82362@freefall.freebsd.org> <20159.999494813@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 07:26:53 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > NOTE: You forgot to add "Reviewed by: xxx" > > Or do you seriously think that mucking about in STDIO doesn't need > a review ? It depends on sort of changes. Serious ones needs review. Maybe this commit message sounds like something big happens, but really not. Most of flags moved out of functions mentioned not affects original stdio and very recent stdio processing (but affects in the middle of my changes flow), really only __SOFF moved out __seek affects it. So, it is more code style change and _not_ architectural redesign. I.e. if they say, that those functions are replaceable, it is bad style to put internal flags processing inside them, because in the future some new internal flag can be added there too which not coexist well with replace. Exact this happens originally with __SOFF. In my changes flow only one was serious enough for review, it was disabling ungetc() at 0, but it is backed out now. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010903112009.A5743>