[2537] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Prototype hell
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Thu Oct 9 21:54:51 1997
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz+@cmu.edu>,
Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>, krbdev@MIT.EDU
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com>
Date: 09 Oct 1997 21:54:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: Tom Yu's message of Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:36:48 -0400
Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> writes:
>> Ok.... so Ken (Raeburn) is correct about mixing K&R style definitions
>> with ANSI style prototypes. So what shall we do? I am still
>> unthrilled about having SIZEOF_footype dependencies in krb5.h, though
>> there may not be a good way around it. Certainly we shouldn't cause
>> krb5_int32 to be exactly 32 bits, because that's patently bogus on
>> larger word-sized architectures. I'll be thinking this over somewhat
>> more.
There's a reason I think sized types are evil. People never listen to
me, though.
>> Also, do we want to completely punt on K&R prototype support? This
>> may not be a bad idea, but do we really want people to lose if they
>> want to link things compiled with non-ANSI compilers against the krb5
>> library? I would argue for keeping the existing KRB5_PROTOTYPE
>> concept, though somewhat cleaned up, in existence. This would ideally
>> allow people to compile and link things against krb5 without needing
>> an ANSI compiler...
I'd love to punt all the prototype crap. When I've suggested this in
the past, Ted grew two new heads and told me to go back across the
river :-)
As long as sized types are present in the interfaces, you can't get
rid of the narrowed types on some platforms.
Marc
