Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:59:20 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: ports/52016: New port: lang/harbour-AClipper-compatible compiler Message-ID: <20040111034814.D23655@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200401101600.i0AG07xl088971@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <200401081510.39015.linimon@lonesome.com> <20040110012527.S18300@gamplex.bde.org> <20040111014013.I22846@gamplex.bde.org> <200401101600.i0AG07xl088971@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <<On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:03:50 +1100 (EST), Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> said:
>
> > Hmm, POSIX.1-2001 doesn't seem to require the value to be integral,
> > except tacitly since they would not be usable in cpp expressions if
> > they were floating point.
>
> This would seem to be implicit, since sysconf() returns a long.
It's tacit at best I think.
Here is the most unclear part of POSIX.1-1990 in this area:
%%%
{_POSIX_JOB_CONTROL} If this symbol is defined, it indicates that the
implementation supports job control.
{_POSIX_SAVED_IDS} [similarly]
%%%
Note that it doesn't say that anything about a value.
The unclearness is moot for these particular constants in POSIX.1-2001,
since they are no longer optional and are required to have a value
greater than 0.
BTW, FreeBSD is perfectly non-POSIX.1-2001 conformant since it intentionally
doesn't support the _POSIX_SAVED_IDS mistake. I hope "appropriate
privilege" can be interpreted suitably weaselly to claim support without
changing the behaviour.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040111034814.D23655>