Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:57:29 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] KABI example conversion and cleanup |
| |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> struct _LA(whatever) { >> int foo; >> int bar; >> }; >> >> struct _LA(another) { >> ... >> }; >> > > this is a good sign that this is all very over designed :) > > It's an eyesore, isn't it? :) > namespace pollution is perhaps evil, but we also should not overreact. > Especially for struct names. *IF* they are in a "narrow enough" header, > the user of the header knows what he is doing, and accepts these to be > in his namespace. > This is true for a small enough application. But things grow, libraries are added, and includes keep pulling other includes in. Sooner or later you'll have a collision. > The problem is things like u64 etc that is VERY common in all headers, > but then again __u64 etc are just fine, history has proven that already. > Agree. But to be on the safe side one can use uint64_t and friends (which the kernel can typedef to u64 and first degree relatives)
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |