Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:37:16 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> Cc: Steven Wallace <swallace@ece.uci.edu>, Bruce Evans <bde@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SYSCALL IDEAS [Was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sysv_msg.c sysv_sem.c sysv_shm.c] Message-ID: <26924.814325836@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 21 Oct 1995 16:54:51 PDT." <199510212354.QAA00601@precipice.shockwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> While I realize this is a bit against the philosophy that some of the
> team members hold, which is that we should not rely on gcc-type
> functionality, I'd actually prefer to see things like SCARG and
Just FYI, it's never been mine. I routinely use structure
initializers that only gcc grocks, and have even been known to do the
occasional:
{
char foo[n];
..
}
To do the job of alloca.. Not that I use the latter construct very
often - I generally just use alloca directly, but the point is that if
it's especially convenient to use gcc features, I use them. gcc now
enjoys the deserved or undeserved privilege (take your pick) of being
ubiquitous. I can't imagine porting to (or being interested in) any
platform that did not support gcc, and if it did not then porting gcc
would be my first task anyway!
I say if advanced features make the code demonstrably cleaner, use
them.
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26924.814325836>