[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:22:40 +0100 |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> If you're serious about merging back to glibc, it'll help
>> (name space cleanliness) to add the "__" prefix: i.e., change
>> your Restrict to __Restrict.
>
> But the prefix _R suffices, no? As far as the standard C name space
> rules are concerned, _R* is in the same category as __*.
Of course :)
I read only the ChangeLog entry in your email, and the fact that
"Restrict" was underlined in my mail reader's rendering didn't catch
my attention. Next time I'll look at the patch.
- Re: enforcing the use of string.h related modules, (continued)
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Bob Proulx, 2007/01/27
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Bob Proulx, 2007/01/27
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Jim Meyering, 2007/01/28
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Paul Eggert, 2007/01/28
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Jim Meyering, 2007/01/29
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Paul Eggert, 2007/01/29
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: build failures: string.h vs. HP-UX, Paul Eggert, 2007/01/28