Applied, thanks!
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Kang-Che Sung <explore...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ralf Friedl <ralf.fri...@online.de> wrote: >> >> Because the way the line is now is one line with 8 values. Changing that to >> use ifdefs for each value would change that one line to 3*8+2=26 lines, that >> makes the code much harder to read and maintain. And there may be other >> places where it is used. It's perfectly legitimate to define the values as >> 0, like you would define O_BINARY as 0 on platforms that don't need/supply >> it. > > Okay. I'm partially convinced about this argument. Consider that there are > other places in busybox code that temporarily defines IUCLC to 0 for similar > purpose: > > libbb/xfuncs.c > libbb/bb_askpass.c > coreutils/stty.c > loginutils/getty.c > >> There is nothing wrong with that. It is possible to use "#if SIGUSR3" to >> test for SIGUSR being defined and nonzero. It has the additional benefit >> that you can use the value in a C statement (as opposed to a C preprocessor >> test) and let the compiler optimize it out. Busybox does that a lot. > > My concern is that there're some macros that are defined to 0 for a > purpose, e.g. > #define O_RDONLY 0x0000 > so it's not a good idea in general to arbitrarily define a macro to 0 without > knowing what you are doing. But for IUCLC and such, it might be safe. > > James (jrtc27), I apologize for my misunderstanding of the issue. > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > busybox@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox