Re: breakage still in sys/systm.h

2000-03-24 Thread Steve Kiernan
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > The definitions of major() and minor() in sys/systm.h break usage of the > > header. Since sys/types.h defines major() and minor() as macros which > > compute the major and minor numbers, this creates an order dependency on > > sys/sys

Re: breakage still in sys/systm.h

2000-03-24 Thread Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Steve Kiernan wrote: > The definitions of major() and minor() in sys/systm.h break usage of the > header. Since sys/types.h defines major() and minor() as macros which > compute the major and minor numbers, this creates an order dependency on > sys/systm.h and sys/types.h.

breakage still in sys/systm.h

2000-03-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: > The definitions of major() and minor() in sys/systm.h break usage of the > header. Since sys/types.h defines major() and minor() as macros which > compute the major and minor numbers, this creates an order dependency on > sys/systm.h and sys/types.h. Is this not a bad thing? No, sinc

breakage still in sys/systm.h

2000-03-24 Thread Steve Kiernan
The definitions of major() and minor() in sys/systm.h break usage of the header. Since sys/types.h defines major() and minor() as macros which compute the major and minor numbers, this creates an order dependency on sys/systm.h and sys/types.h. Is this not a bad thing? -- Stephen Kiernan [EMAIL