Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:08:42 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Mising ENODATA Message-ID: <56E6C5EA.2080005@digiware.nl>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, According the standard is ENODATA an extention of errno.h defines... http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7 IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition [ENODATA] [OB XSR] [Option Start] No message available. No message is available on the STREAM head read queue. [Option End] [XSR] [Option Start] XSI STREAMS [Option End] The functionality described is optional. The functionality described is also an extension to the ISO C standard. Where applicable, functions are marked with the XSR margin legend in the SYNOPSIS section. Where additional semantics apply to a function, the material is identified by use of the XSR margin legend. [OB] [Option Start] Obsolescent [Option End] The functionality described may be removed in a future version of this volume of POSIX.1-2008. Strictly Conforming POSIX Applications and Strictly Conforming XSI Applications shall not use obsolescent features. Where applicable, the material is identified by use of the OB margin legend. ---- The OB part makes a bit strange to ask for definition, but would it be possible to add ENODATA to our headers? The alternative question is: why would we not? Reason I ask, is that while porting Ceph, I keep on running into the fact that ENODATA is not defined. Currently we try to set it equal to ENOATTR, but that sort of feels silly. The next part comes with the additional tools ea. like cython, they don't really know about a missing definition. So this just propagates further and further. In the archives I was not able to find arguments on why not to add it. Hence my question. Thanx, --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56E6C5EA.2080005>