Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:43:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: SET, CLR, ISSET in types.h for _KERNEL builds Message-ID: <20060705114233.G38456@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060705.091556.513891519.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060628150227.R75801@fledge.watson.org> <28872.1151526546@critter.freebsd.dk> <20060705.091556.513891519.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: :In message: <28872.1151526546@critter.freebsd.dk> : "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes: :: In message <20060628150227.R75801@fledge.watson.org>, "Andrew R. Reiter" writes :: : :: > :: >I apologize for top posting, but I lost the email that I think my :: >point/question pertains to. :: > :: >Part of this seems to be for compatibility / merging from drivers of other :: >OSes, no? If I am wrong, ignore me :-). If this is the case, would it be :: >better to create some common other area for things of this nature so that :: >it suffices to allow builds, but does not infect other areas of our own :: >code base? :: :: That's what I proposed too: #include <sys/netbsd_compat.h> : :This is even lamer. It makes no sense to invent a stupid place for a :compatibility define. Might as well put the definition of NULL in :limits.h. : :I'm killing this idea because people hate it. Please explain which "idea" you're killing ... because your post-July 4th attitude does not make it clear. THANKS! : :Warner : : -- arr@watson.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060705114233.G38456>