[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: AW: [PATCH 5/5] Bionic lacks transparent LFS migrations; provide a workaround
From:       Matt Whitlock <busybox () mattwhitlock ! name>
Date:       2015-04-28 21:19:19
Message-ID: 204351581.rtMcQrrWxB () crushinator
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015, at 6:36 am, dietmar.schindler@manroland-web.com wrote:
> Whose policy is that which caters to a certain compiler option's inept warnings? \
> "What are the goals of Busybox?" (http://www.busybox.net/FAQ.html#goals) says: "We \
> also want to have the simplest and cleanest implementation we can manage..." - I \
> wouldn't say that 
> #if defined(__BIONIC__) && defined(_FILE_OFFSET_BITS) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64
> 
> is as simple and clean as
> 
> #if defined(__BIONIC__) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64

I originally had it as you suggest, without the redundant check, but I saw the \
compiler warning and added the extra check to avoid the warning. Frankly, I consider \
having no warnings to be "cleaner," even if I have to add a little bit of visual \
noise to the code. _______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]