Both __pure and __attribute_pure__ are the same, and I found out that
there is only a handful of users for these. __attribute_pure__ is
used in approximately 15 places, and __pure is not used anywhere.
Is either __pure or __attribute_pure__ preferred? Imo, __pure looks
much nicer than __attribute_pure__ so we could do a replacement.
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
[email protected] "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> Both __pure and __attribute_pure__ are the same, and I found out that
> there is only a handful of users for these. __attribute_pure__ is
> used in approximately 15 places, and __pure is not used anywhere.
>
> Is either __pure or __attribute_pure__ preferred? Imo, __pure looks
> much nicer than __attribute_pure__ so we could do a replacement.
that was pretty much the point of my earlier post -- given the
precedent for all of the other short forms, there seems to be no
reason not to simply use "__pure" and delete the longer definition.
i'll post a patch for that shortly.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================