Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/04/22/08:46:09
On Apr 22 07:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 10:37:50AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I'm not sure this presumption is correct. The d_ino field is not marked
> >as optional in SUSv3, it's marked as an XSI extension. The crux with
> >XSI extensions is that (quote SuSv3) "Application writers may confidently
> >make use of an extension on all systems supporting the X/Open System
> >Interfaces Extension." This covers practically every serious system in
> >the POSIX world right now. If we drop d_ino, I'd expect another round
> >of suddenly broken applications.
>
> If there are programs out there which rely on d_ino then they are broken
> on cygwin right now and have been for some time.
It's more the existance than the correctness what I'm taking about.
I can easily imagine applications using d_ino only for keeping track
of directory content. Mind you, I'm just concerned that dropping
the struct member could affect applications. OTOH, that's what porting
is for, isn't it?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -