From: "Tim Van Holder" To: Subject: Re: djgpp: djgpp/include/grp.h,pwd.h,stdio.h,stdlib.h Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200106191920.PAA21440@envy.delorie.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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 > This changelog appears truncated, but it seems like you're doing > multiple unrelated changes in one checkin (based on the diffs). > Please do separate commits for unrelated changes; that makes them > easier to review and discuss. I know; I apologize - my copy of CVS acted up - the command line for it probably got truncated, resulting in a truncated message and a commit for the current dir (include/ in this case) instead of just include/stdlib.h. I've already updated the CVS logs with the proper messages; the only commit that shouldn't really have happened was the stdio.h one, but the changes there seem pretty harmless. > These next two changes may break binary compatibility. The functions > I found all return just pointers, but could the size change cause > problems? I don't think so; the new fields were added at the end, so the offsets remain identical as well. I thought these changes were checked and approved a while ago. > Why this change? This was not intended to go in. Again, my apologies. > Are these functions also part of the new posix spec? Yes, they are. I had started to walk through include files and move prototypes to the relevant section, so a simple "cvs diff include" would tell me for what functions I needed to check the implementations - luckily, I had only done (part of) stdio.h.