This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: No prototype for readdir_r


On Nov 15 13:45, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 1:41 PM, Craig Howland wrote:
> > On 11/15/2013 01:49 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I noticed that readdir_r() does not have a prototype.
> >> It should be in dirent.h. I am happy to add it to
> >> the RTEMS dirent.h but there are other versions of
> >> this file and
> >>
> >> ./libc/include/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/include/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/machine/spu/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/rtems/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/decstation/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/sun4/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/linux/bits/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/linux/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/sparc64/sys/dirent.h
> >> ./libc/sys/sysvi386/sys/dirent.h
> >>
> >> I can drop the prototype in those at the same time.
> >>
> >> And ... Linux man page shows these guards. What should
> >> they be on newlib?
> >>
> >>      _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 1 || _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE ||
> >>      _SVID_SOURCE || _POSIX_SOURCE
> >>
> >       It probably is not worth bothering with a guard.
> >       dirent.h is not in the C standard, so there is no gate needed based on 
> > it.  (Someone could say that with your sample gate that it would be skipped with 
> > STRICT_ANSI, but from that point of view, dirent.h should not even be included.)
> >       POSIX says is was added in issue 2, which is so ancient that it seems 
> > unreasonable to add something now to avoid it for someone trying to use issue 
> > 1.  (I think that the guard would probably be _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 199209 to be 
> > for issue 2, assuming that sys/cdefs.h has been included before the check.)  I 
> > don't know why GLIBC's test is for 1, instead of 2.
> 
> So you would lean to just adding it to every dirent.h
> without a guard? If so, that's really easy. :)

I agree with Craig.  In theory there's no good reason to omit
prototypes which are standard for a long time anyway.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpkalUnWm5Aw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]