Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:23:46 -0500 From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LIBC_SCCS Message-ID: <201804272323.w3RNNksd002470@mail.karels.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 27 Apr 2018 15:19:06 -0700. <1711113.VelFtdTVS7@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I suspect no one cares, but for whatever reason our current handling of the > LIBC_SCCS macro in some of our libraries annoys me. In theory it seems like > LIBC_SCCS's purpose is to control whether or not old SCCS IDs from Berkeley > are included in libc's sources when libc is built. (Similar to how macros > control the behavior of __FBSDID().) However, we use an odd construct in > the tree. First, we define LIBC_SCCS by default in the CFLAGS of various > libraries (libkvm, libutil, libthr, libc, etc.) which in theory would enable > the IDs, but then we explicitly wrap them in #if 0, e.g.: > #if defined(LIBC_SCCS) && !defined(lint) > #if 0 > static char sccsid[] = "@(#)kvm_hp300.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 6/4/93"; > #endif > #endif /* LIBC_SCCS and not lint */ > I'd rather that we make LIBC_SCCS actually work by removing the #if 0 (and > perhaps the lint baggage) but then remove it from the default CFLAGS to > preserve the existing behavior by default. Does anyone else care if I do > this? I don't object to this, but I wonder whether anyone will ever want these ancient IDs in libc. They were useful when libc was not a shared library, but (a) libc is shared, and (b) the sccsid is not changing much, at least not for the last 25 years. But "#ifdef LIBC_SCCS" is as good a way as any to turn this into a comment. You picked an interesting example; I wonder when someone last ran a BSD system on an HP 300. IIRC, it was a 68030-based system. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201804272323.w3RNNksd002470>