linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Is there no way to shared code with Linux and other OSes?

To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: Is there no way to shared code with Linux and other OSes?
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@paralogos.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:44:52 -0600
Cc: Chad Reese <kreese@caviumnetworks.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811221109330.29539@anakin>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <4927C34F.4000201@caviumnetworks.com> <4927D6E0.4020009@paralogos.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811221109330.29539@anakin>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
[This should be good for some useless weekend flaming.]

Yeah! ;-)

Chad Reese wrote:
Don't blame Chad for this quote, it was me!
to move away from such arbitrary dogmatism.  The argument given for banning
typedefs altogether is that nested typedefs are confusing to programmers.  I

I thought the main reason was that you can't have forward declarations of
typedefs, while you can have for structs.
That's a better argument than the one in the HTML version of Documentation/CodingStyle.txt that I had bookmarked (which was what I cited). Interestingly, if I look at the *current* Linux Documentation/CodingStyle.txt for 2.6.28-rc6, the blanket interdiction of typedefs is no longer there! Things *have* evolved, as I said they'd have to, to recognize 5 (a good Illuminati number) cases where typedefs are permitted. Superficially, based on Chad's description (I admit that I haven't been reviewing his patches) the Cavium case would seem to fall into the first category. Is the MIPS Linux community now some kind of ultra-orthodox sub-sect of the Linux cult? ;o)

         Regards,

         Kevin K.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>