Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:15:30 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Will Andrews <will@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make arch.c compat.c cond.c dir.c hash.c job.c job.h list.h lst.h main.c make.c make.h parse.c sprite.h suff.c targ.c var.c src/usr.bin/make/lst.lib lstAppend.c lstConcat.c lstDatum.c lstDeQueue.c lstDestroy.c lstDupl.c ... Message-ID: <20001203071530.N559@puck.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012031903500.591-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 07:12:24PM %2B1100 References: <200012021858.eB2Iw3F88460@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012031903500.591-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 07:12:24PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > K&R support is one reason. There are also stylistic reasons. Programmers > who believe in explicit casting of values returned by malloc(), like the > author of make(1), may believe in explicit types for everything. Yeah, I'm sure it's good for stylistic reasons. It just serves to confuse programmers used to using NULL. And actually, I've never seen linked lists using anything besides NULL. But then again, I didn't look at the queue(3) implementation. Where does it say this supports K&R? > I think make(1) is maintained by NetBSD (Christos Zoulas). Apparently our version doesn't quite sync with his. I believe we have a few hacks that would need to be merged into the vendor branch before we would move to a Zoulas-maintained make(1). Perhaps it would be wise to discuss these things with Christos himself. -- wca 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?20001203071530.N559>