From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Sep 24 00:45:41 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id AAA09718
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 00:45:41 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA09687
          ; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 00:45:03 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA21994; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:41:15 +1000
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:41:15 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199509240741.RAA21994@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: jkh@freefall.freebsd.org, julian@ref.tfs.com
Subject: Re: Whither wait_t?
Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>/*
> * Use of this union is deprecated
> */
>union wait
>{

>but no definition of wait_t

>> 
>> Shouldn't it be defined in sys/wait.h?  Not in 2.1! :-(
>> 
>> What's our evil friend POSIX say?
>I don't think POSIX has ever heard of wait_t
>(BTW what IS it?. it's not in 2.0.5 either..)

It doesn't exist.  Old BSD applications may want to call the wait*()
functions with a bogus `union wait *' arg instead of the Standard,
Portable, `int *' arg..  Linux supports these applications using gcc
extensions.  BSD (4.4lite) doesn't support these applications.

Bruce