Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:10:20 -0800 (PST) From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: standards/63173: Patch to add getopt_long_only(3) to libc Message-ID: <200402230410.i1N4AKgO080644@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR standards/63173; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, ru@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/63173: Patch to add getopt_long_only(3) to libc Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:04:57 +0300 On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote: > > It means your patch for header is wrong. If POSIX says that getopt() must > > be declared in <unistd.h>, it is only place where is must be declared, and > > not in <getopt.h> etc. If you need its declaration in non-standard header > > <getopt.h>, <unistd.h> must be included, as was done before your patch. > > Well, that's exactly the point where I got confused as e.g. according It seems now I change my mind a bit. It will be no harm, if we use _GETOPT_DECLARED in both <unistd.h> and <getopt.h> becayse GNU getopt.h we attempt to mimic to does not suppose to reveal all <unistd.h> functions by including getopt.h. I'll take care of that. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402230410.i1N4AKgO080644>