Re: Library __progname cleanups - commit candidate

> > retrieving revision 1.3
> > diff -u -d -r1.3 getprogname.c
> > --- libc/gen/getprogname.c	1 Feb 2002 00:57:29 -0000	1.3
> > +++ libc/gen/getprogname.c	26 Mar 2002 08:33:48 -0000
> > @@ -3,10 +3,12 @@
> >
> >  #include <stdlib.h>
> 
> This is missing includes of "namespace.h" and "un-namespace.h", except
> you do things in a nonstandard way.  Similarly elsewhere.  Not so
> similarly in err.c above (I limited the scopy of the namespace includes
> too carefully there, so they don't already cover <stdlib.h>).

You don't think this "standard way" could be documented somewhere, do you?

> Why not use the standard namespace mechanism?  It just happens that
> this header provides a convenient place to put prototype for the
> implementatation name so that a less hackish mechanism can be used,
> but this is surprising.

"Standard"? No documentation == no standard. Even the headers
themselves have no useful comments.

> > -			snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%s - Warning: Thread %p attempted to lock %p from %s (%d) was left locked from %s (%d)\n", __progname, curthread, lck, fname, lineno, lck->fname, lck->lineno);
> > +			snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%s - Warning: Thread %p attempted to lock %p from %s (%d) was left locked from %s (%d)\n", _getprogname(), curthread, lck, fname, lineno, lck->fname, lck->lineno);
> 
> Disgustingly long line longer than before.

I'd prefer to solve this with an appropriate indent(1).

M
-- 
o       Mark Murray
\_
O.\_    Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message