This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: vnc and lwip

Gary Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:39, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:

Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 06:33:55PM +0300, Jani Monoses wrote:

Since lwip has a network.h header for compatibility with the other stacks
this can be applied.Will do so if nobody objects.

Personally I dislike <network.h> when the new POSIX standard has a standardised layout for the BSD sockets API. i.e. <sys/socket.h> etc.

network.h is not normal, but it does sort out the macro magic needed to get the header files to compile correctly. I think thats why Gary decided to invent it.

Macro magic is an obstacle to using portable code without jumping through non-obvious (even if documented) hoops.

Exactly, but with the new [FreeBSD] stack this is not so important.

Putting -D__ECOS=1 in the global CFLAGS might be better anyway so it appears in application flags that copy the global ones.

It does still provide some useful stuff, including prototypes for
non-standard functions.

Fair enough, although that should live under <cyg/...>. Given the way we define include paths we already clash with any user code that have their own network.h that they want to include even by #include "network.h". We should keep the top level directory free of non-standard headers.

Anyway, I'm too lazy to do anything about the existing situation :-), but I'd dislike any standardisation on something non-standard.

eCosCentric    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]