This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.

From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.
References: <4F2C5A65.2070301@mentor.com><20120203221227.404162C086@topped-with-meat.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1202032239140.21714@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

> If we're changing them all then I'd go for a convention that shows 
> unambiguously what part of the implementation owns that part of the 
> implementation namespace, e.g. __glibc_reservedN.

Sounds fine to me.  What I think matters most is just that we change to
being consistent across our codebase and keeping it that way in the future.
(It could even be done with some <sys/cdefs.h> macro or something, though
I don't see much benefit in that.)


Thanks,
Roland

References:
- Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: Summary of the "Use __unused0" discussion.
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]