On 2 Apr 2014, at 18:24, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does, I read it. Read the code again. Or even just read the comments. In particular the blocks_abi.h file contains a detailed description of why the rest of what you say is wrong. > Now libc depends on the non-standard ABI Not true, the ABI is documented and is as standard as the C++ ABI. We have code in ports and in the base system that relies on this ABI already. > of non-standard C extension, The extension is non-standard, however (if you'd read the code, or the comments in the code you'd already know that) the code in libc does not require this extension to exist. > implemented by only one compiler. Actually, by two, both of which are in the base system. Well, three if you count Apple-GCC as different from FSF-GCC. Oh, and a couple of proprietary compilers. All of which are only required for *callers* of these functions. libc itself still builds correctly (and is tested building) with compilers that don't support blocks. If you have helpful comments, then I suggest you try to phrase them in a less confrontational tone. David _______________________________________________ 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"
