Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:03:28 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id: <7826-Fri15Jun2001190328+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDICEEOCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject: Re: getconf v2
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDICEEOCEAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:06:34 +0200
> 
> > Shouldn't the output be just "undefined\n"?  That's what the Posix
> > draft I have seems to indicate.  Or is there a new draft?
> 
> >From my reading, "undefined\n" is only the mandated response for
> undefined settings (ie getconf FOO); it doesn't specify what should
> be printed if an invalid specification is used.

The draft I have uses "undefined\n" in all other circumstances.

> So wouldn't it be better to add _SC_V6_ILP32_OFF32 to sysconf, and
> have getconf call sysconf()?

Yes, that would be also a possibility.