K&R prototypes?

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Sat Sep 12 12:11:04 UTC 2009

On Friday 11 September 2009 19:52:09 Rob Landley wrote:
> My question is what standards is uClibc built against?  C99 has been out
>  for a decade, and C89 (ala "ANSI C") has been out for 20 years, but the
>  readpath.c code starts with:
> #ifdef __STDC__
> char *realpath(const char *path, char got_path[])
> #else
> char *realpath(path, got_path)
> const char *path;
> char got_path[];
> #endif
> {
> Kernighan and Ritchie prototypes?  From 1978?  Really?
> Is that honestly still necessary?  I'm attempting to deal with the fact
>  that the 2.6 kernel series hasn't really got a PATH_MAX anymore, can I
>  clean this out too while I'm there?

this is just code that no one has touched because it hasnt been a problem.  
but no, we do not require support of these old prototype styles.  if someone 
were to remove it, that's perfectly fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/attachments/20090912/6e133083/attachment.pgp>

More information about the uClibc mailing list