Sender:	nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID:	<36F5594D.98AC60F0@cartsys.com>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:40:45 -0800
From:	Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3 i586)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Question about porting strategy.
References:	<20bthnlzod DOT fsf AT Sky DOT inp DOT nsk DOT su>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Michael Bukin wrote:

> 2.  There are tests for S_ISLNK and S_ISSOCK and also for S_IFLNK and
> S_IFSOCK.  I recall that it was suggested just to define missing
> symbols if they are not already defined.  Is it correct?  And maybe
> these defines should be added in DJGPP anyway?  I know that there is
> no such functionality, but libc calls just will not return those
> values and it can be used for some tweaking with FSEXT (I'm not sure
> about it).

I think the standard is that systems without symlinks and sockets should
not define S_ISLNK and S_ISSOCK respectively.  Attempts to use these
symbols should be predicated on an appropriate #ifdef.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com

- Raw text -