Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:46:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include pwd.h Message-ID: <200206112146.g5BLk6oN008252@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200206091939.g59JdJC05285@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020610004026.GD61036@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200206100049.g5A0nr1P004846@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609211243.C51371@espresso.q9media.com> <200206100314.g5A3EjTt005317@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609232020.F51371@espresso.q9media.com> <3D05364A.469A44A5@bellatlantic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In thinking about this further I can see both solutions (including
sys/types in standard includes, and using an architectural-type typedef
and only including the architectural includes). I think the typedef
idea is doable but I still worry that it will result in a lot of mess
in the include files. #include <sys/types.h> creates more namespace
pollution but seems to be a whole lot cleaner otherwise. I don't think
the typedef idea will completely solve the namespace pollution issue
because, again, a good chunk of application C code out there needs
sys/types.h anyway. I wonder if there is a way to test its effectiveness
in regards to reducing ports patches and such (improving portability).
For the record, I do not think we will hit up against the problem of
multiple incompatible typedefs, because the typedefs are based on
architectural types (e.g. like _BSD_TIME_T), not core C types.
-Matt
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?200206112146.g5BLk6oN008252>