Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:20:49 +0100 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] rename macro parameter list in cpufunc.h Message-ID: <20101228182049.GV61199@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <201012281310.50739.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20101228132703.GC68770@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <20101228173529.GA38083@alchemy.franken.de> <201012281310.50739.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:10:50PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:35:29 pm Marius Strobl wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 02:27:04PM +0100, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > sys/sparc64/include/cpufunc.h defines macro having a parameter named > > > 'xor'. This is a reserved keyword in C++. For this reason, it is > > > impossible to use this header in C++ (e.g., by including > > > machine/atomic.h). > > > > > > This patch [1] renames these parameters to _xor. Please review and/or > > > approve (I need an explicit approval in order to commit to src). > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~gahr/cpufunc.h.diff > > > > Hrm, I really don't like the inconsistency only renaming "xor" > > introduces, rototilling the whole file also seems excessive though > > (also that would get it closer to style(9)). Would wrapping it in > > __BEGIN_DECLS or something like that work as an alternate solution? > > Not for a reserved word like 'class'. Maybe you could rename 'xor' to > something else like 'mask' instead? > The description of the assembly syntax uses "xor" so I'd prefer to keep the name of the parameter close to that, I'd be okay with using f.e. "xorval" though. Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101228182049.GV61199>