Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:08 +0200, Dennis Heuer wrote:
> unifdef is not only very old and unmaintained, the binary does not work
> and the source does not compile on a pure x86_64 system. 

It works for me. Describe your problem more coherently.

I wouldn't describe it as 'very old' -- the last commit seems to have
been last March, which isn't _so_ recent but perhaps it just hasn't
_needed_ an update?

Neither would I describe it as unmaintained. Tony was quite quickly
responsive when I asked him if it would be OK to include unifdef in the
kernel source tree.

> There is another tool that worked for me--though it 'closed with
> remarks'--and that was updated recently (several times this year). It
> is called sunifdef, is under an equal (new) BSD license, and is
> proposed to be the successor of unifdef. See the project page:
> 
> http://www.sunifdef.strudl.org/ 

I don't see a huge point in changing, unless it lets us get rid of stuff
like 

	#if defined(__KERNEL__ && ....

when used with -U__KERNEL__.

-- 
dwmw2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/