Message-ID: <3958561A.E3D9736D@softhome.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:22:02 +0200 From: Laurynas Biveinis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: lt,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Patch: chown() preparation for symlinks References: <395643BB DOT 7109B0DA AT softhome DOT net> <200006261453 DOT KAA11494 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3957BF10 DOT 7EBB2B8D AT softhome DOT net> <200006262111 DOT RAA02148 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com DJ Delorie wrote: > > > assumption wrong? Or is it general policy to #include > > everywhere in libc sources to play safe? > > I've got a program (or had, when I was working under MS-DOS) that > checked libc.a for "cleanness". It told me when I needed stubs.h and > when I didn't. If you can get that program working again (um, > tests/libclink/check.cc and friends) then it will tell you when you > need it and when you don't. If I understand correctly, the following from its output means that libc/stubs.h is missing: Impure stub chown.o(access) -> stub0000.o Impure stub fsext.o(close) -> stub0002.o Impure stub tempnam.o(access) -> stub0000.o Impure stub malloc.o(sbrk) -> stub0031.o Impure stub fwrite.o(isatty) -> stub0008.o I've just included libc/stubs.h in chown.c and the first line of output disappeared. I'll investigate other problems mentioned there. Laurynas