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]>
- sunifdef instead of unifdef
- 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):
 |