From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 17 12:19:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158BE1065674 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A568FC1F for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c122-107-114-89.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-107-114-89.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.107.114.89]) by mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p1HCJJeE003289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:19:21 +1100 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:19:19 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Bruce Cran In-Reply-To: <201102171040.p1HAeA0I020967@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20110217230119.X2097@besplex.bde.org> References: <201102171040.p1HAeA0I020967@freefall.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/104743: [headers] [patch] Wrong values for _POSIX_ minimal limits X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:19:30 -0000 On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Bruce Cran wrote: > Subject: Re: standards/104743: [headers] [patch] Wrong values for _POSIX_ > minimal limits > > Can this PR be closed now? Most of its points seem to be unaddressed. According to the followup, some of the limits depend on the version of POSIX. FreeBSD attempts to support old versions of POSIX, and has some such support even in (to prevent new POSIX definitions being visible for old versions of POSIX), but it doesn't have ifdefs for any of the values. All the old names are under a __POSIX_VISIBLE ifdef, which means any version of POSIX, but the values for many of the old names are different in at least POSIX.1-1990 from the ones in current POSIX, and now matches current POSIX according to the followup. I checked that patch in the original PR resets all the values that it changes to match POSIX.1-1990. Bruce