linux-kernel - why both "__pure" and "__attribute_pure_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 May 2007 03:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: why both "__pure" and "__attribute_pure__"?


  is there a reason that compiler-gcc.h defines both:

#define __pure                          __attribute__((pure))
#define __attribute_pure__              __attribute__((pure))

one would think that the shorter form would be preferable to go along
with the other short forms defined in that header file, but a quick
tree scan shows that the longer form is used exclusively (although
still not in what you'd call overwhelming numbers):

$ grep -rw __attribute_pure__ * | wc -l
17
$ grep -rw __pure * | wc -l
1

  is there any reason not to just change those few instances to the
short form?

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/