Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:05:04 BST, Tony Finch said:

> already in serious trouble: for example, my unifdef was written so that I
> could understand xterm's frightening pty handling....)

Well, that code *does* warn you:

* If you think you know what all of this code is doing, you are
* probably very mistaken.  There be serious and nasty dragons here.

:)

Attachment: pgpPeQk0M5Mpt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• References:
  • sunifdef instead of unifdef
    • From: Dennis Heuer <[email protected]>
  • Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef
    • From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
  • Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef
    • From: Tony Finch <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] x86_64: use BUILD_BUG_ON in FPU code
• Next by Date: [PATCH] uaccess.h: match kernel-doc and function names
• Previous by thread: Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef
• Next by thread: Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]