change log for rtems (2011-02-17)

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Mon Feb 21 12:33:16 UTC 2011

On 02/21/2011 01:19 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:49 , Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> +  Scheduler_Control  _Scheduler = {
>>> +    .Ready_queues.priority = NULL,
>>> +    .Operations            = SCHEDULER_ENTRY_POINTS
>>>    };
> Yes, please, no more of those in header files!

BTW1: In before-C99 times, it was considered to be good style to add 
comments in such slots, e.g.
or (a matter of personal preference)

(c.f. the X11 sources for real world examples of habit).

BTW2: I consider this kind of "entries defines" inside of confdefs.h's 
to be a broken and flawed design. However, I am ranting against them as 
long as I am involved into RTEMS :)

> Is there a general RTEMS rule that this isn't allowed in a header file if it is visible in C++?

All public header files are supposed to be C++ safe and self-contained.

> I'll open some bug reports.
Please do so.

[I guess, I better should revive a "never finished", "nice-to-have" 
RTEMS side-project I have laying around "abandoned" for several years:
A testsuite to check the RTEMS headers.]


More information about the vc mailing list