Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 19:27:52 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/15906: rcmd(3) prototype disagrees with definition Message-ID: <200001061927.TAA00473@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> of "Wed, 05 Jan 2000 09:40:02 PST." <200001051740.JAA13901@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The following reply was made to PR bin/15906; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> > To: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de > Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: bin/15906: rcmd(3) prototype disagrees with definition > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:30:19 -0500 (EST) > > <<On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:01:35 +0100 (CET), Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de> said: > > >> Synopsis: rcmd(3) prototype disagrees with definition > > No, it does not. > > > int rcmd __P((char **, int, const char *, > > const char *, const char *, int *)); > > This is the correct prototype for a declaration of the form: > > > int > > rcmd(ahost, rport, locuser, remuser, cmd, fd2p) > > char **ahost; > > u_short rport; > > const char *locuser, *remuser, *cmd; > > int *fd2p; > > > Which instances should be fixed? > > Neither. Please read a text on Standard C, such as K&R or H&S. Am I missing something ? The function definition, man page and header file should be consistent. ``int'' != ``u_short'' irrespective of promotions. u_short is correct (although I don't know what posix has to say about it). > -GAWollman -- Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org> <http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@OpenBSD.org> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001061927.TAA00473>