Re: svn commit: r228878 - head/include
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote: Hello Sean, * Sean C. Farley , 20111230 03:54: I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should __bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set? It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++. Even if the C++ standard doesn't mention it at all, I think it doesn't mean it is forbidden to define it. It starts with __[a-z], so it is in the reserved namespace. I am fine with it. I found many variations of stdbool.h with some wrapping __bool_true_false_are_defined within the __cplusplus check (e.g., glibc) and some that did not. glibc may have it because stdbool.h is included from cstdbool and stdbool.h in /usr/include/c++/4.2/tr1/. Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file be based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious for this within style(9), but I am curious. I am not aware of this. I am not aware of it either, hence, my question. It was just something to which I have grown accustomed. Using __bool_true_false_are_defined as the guard works. Sean -- s...@freebsd.org ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r228878 - head/include
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, m...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Sean C. Farley wrote: On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote: Author: ed Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 New Revision: 228878 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878 Log: Remove unneeded guard. There is no reason why needs an include guard. It is already protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined. Modified: head/include/stdbool.h Modified: head/include/stdbool.h == --- head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 18:15:31 2011 (r228877) +++ head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 (r228878) @@ -26,9 +26,6 @@ * $FreeBSD$ */ -#ifndef _STDBOOL_H_ -#define _STDBOOL_H_ - #ifndef __bool_true_false_are_defined #define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1 @@ -44,5 +41,3 @@ typedef int _Bool; #endif /* !__cplusplus */ #endif /* __bool_true_false_are_defined */ - -#endif /* !_STDBOOL_H_ */ I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should __bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set? It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++. My quick googling didn't show anything at all about the C++ standard and stdbool.h or __bool_true_false_are_defined. It was probably originally set because bool, true, and false are all C++ keywords so certain code that wanted to ifdef on them didn't also need to check __cplusplus. I did not find anything definitive either. Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file be based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious for this within style(9), but I am curious. I think it's just common use to make sure different headers use a different include guard, so they only protect their contents, not any other file's. The C standard only mentions the symbols bool, true, false, and __bool_true_false_are_defined in regards to stdbool.h. Thank you. I asked since I have only really noticed filename-based guards in the tree although not all are this way (i.e., bsdxml.h uses Expat_INCLUDED). Sean -- s...@freebsd.org___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r228878 - head/include
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote: Author: ed Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 New Revision: 228878 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878 Log: Remove unneeded guard. There is no reason why needs an include guard. It is already protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined. Modified: head/include/stdbool.h Modified: head/include/stdbool.h == --- head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 18:15:31 2011(r228877) +++ head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011(r228878) @@ -26,9 +26,6 @@ * $FreeBSD$ */ -#ifndef _STDBOOL_H_ -#define_STDBOOL_H_ - #ifndef __bool_true_false_are_defined #define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1 @@ -44,5 +41,3 @@ typedef int _Bool; #endif /* !__cplusplus */ #endif /* __bool_true_false_are_defined */ - -#endif /* !_STDBOOL_H_ */ I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should __bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set? It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++. Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file be based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious for this within style(9), but I am curious. Sean -- s...@freebsd.org ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r226614 - head/share/man/man9
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Doug Barton wrote: On 10/21/2011 06:54, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: +It is not possible to guard allocations that really expect theirselves to be s/theirselves/themselves/ Running this through aspell should have caught this. :) ispell says it is OK. It is in /usr/share/dict/web2. Of course, "themselves" is much more commonly used while "theirselves" appears to be more logical[1]. :) Sean 1. http://color-connection.com/EngVW/Lessons/lesson1.htm -- s...@freebsd.org ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r224903 - head/lib/libusb
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Author: hselasky
Date: Tue Aug 16 08:34:16 2011
New Revision: 224903
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/224903
Log:
Add missing function to get device speed to the LibUSB v1.0 API.
MFC after: 1 week
Approved by: re (kib)
Modified:
head/lib/libusb/libusb.h
head/lib/libusb/libusb10.c
Modified: head/lib/libusb/libusb.h
==
--- head/lib/libusb/libusb.hTue Aug 16 06:26:51 2011(r224902)
+++ head/lib/libusb/libusb.hTue Aug 16 08:34:16 2011(r224903)
@@ -151,6 +151,14 @@ enum libusb_error {
LIBUSB_ERROR_OTHER = -99,
};
+enum libusb_speed {
+ LIBUSB_SPEED_UNKNOWN = 0,
+ LIBUSB_SPEED_LOW = 1,
+ LIBUSB_SPEED_FULL = 2,
+ LIBUSB_SPEED_HIGH = 3,
+ LIBUSB_SPEED_SUPER = 4,
+};
+
*snip*
+enum libusb_speed
+libusb_get_device_speed(libusb_device *dev)
+{
+ if (dev == NULL)
+ return (0); /* should not happen */
Should that return LIBUSB_SPEED_UNKNOWN instead of 0?
Sean
--
s...@freebsd.org
___
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r216813 - head/sys/compat/linux
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011, Alexander Best wrote: On Thu Dec 30 10, Sean Farley wrote: Author: scf Date: Thu Dec 30 02:18:04 2010 New Revision: 216813 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216813 Log: Fix the LINUX_SOUND_MIXER_INFO ioctl to return success after the information is set to FreeBSD. It had been falling through to the end of linux_ioctl_sound() and returning ENOIOCTL. Noticed when running the Linux ALSA amixer tool. Add a LINUX_SOUND_MIXER_READ_CAPS ioctl which is used by the Skype v2.1.0.81 binary. i'm running r216877 and still skype won't detect my audio devices (i.e. it reports "Problem With Audio Playback"). this is with the static skype binary package. I forgot to mention that the change is only effective using the secret decoder ring. :) Here[1] is the E-mail I sent previously to emulation@ which details what is necessary to get sound output working in Skype and input in arecord. I have not figured out how to get Skype to work with the microphone, at least on my system. I wish Skype would bring back the OSS capability. Sean 1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2010-September/008085.html -- s...@freebsd.org ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
