mount -a remounts tmpfs entries: bug or feature?

[Cathey, Jim]

>>> Lots of #if ENABLE in general that could be if (ENABLE) instead.   
>> In general a static  
>> function should be inlineable and optimizable away with gcc 4.x.
>
>should be != is. gcc is still sometimes rather stupid.
>#if FOO is a surefire way to DEFINITELY exclude some code.
>if (FOO) (actually some more complex constructs with &&, ||,
>etc) confuse gcc.

If anyone wants my opinion, I greatly dislike using if(FOO) with
the expectation that the compiler will eliminate the code.  I
expect if() to be associated only with run-time decisions,
just as #if is with compile-time decisions.  In fact, if cc
_were_ able to eliminate great gobs of code I'd even expect a
warning to that effect, as it is likely that that is NOT what
I as author intended.

While a well-behaved compiler can/should be able to do the
job, it cannot do it under all conditions where it is necessary.
(Consider a C source that is also compilable under VMS.  No way
the maze of #includes could even be handled without #if, much
less compiling its way past VMS-specific grubbage.  Don't like
VMS as an example?  Then how about Windoze/DoS?)  So, given
that you have to use #if anyway for at least some code configuration
jobs, why not use it for everything?  After all, the C preprocessor
is one of the big reasons that C and all its derivatives are so
popular.  It works, it is simple, and it's fairly unambiguous.

Is it really the intent, after all, that BB _only_ be usable
with gcc 4.x, presumably on Linux?  How parochial!

-- Jim