| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On 7 August 2010 11:06, Steven Monai wrote: > IMHO, this is an unsafe approach. If, in a future version, upstream > decides to start using itr->d_reclen for its intended purpose, then the > plausible-but-incorrect value you've put there could become the source > of Cygwin-specific bugs. In principle, if you can't/won't put the > correct value there (which I see Corinna has helpfully posted), then you > ought to put an obviously incorrect value there instead, such as 0 or -1. > > Perhaps the safest approach, though, would be to remove (or comment-out) > the d_reclen field from the itr struct. Then, if upstream *does* use > that field in the future, you should get build errors to alert you of that. I've actually went with Corinna's proposed itr->d_reclen implementation, which I believe is the safest route for now. Cheers! Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |