Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:02:21 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley3 AT escape DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libc question: Why no setpgrp()?
In-Reply-To: <3b68c7f6.8131322@news.escape.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010802100200.28510Q-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> I ask because a unix configure script I'm running wants to test
> whether getpgrp takes no argument, and the test program it tries to
> run uses the setpgrp() function.  Needless to say, the compile fails,
> and configure takes its default value, which assumes that getpgrp()
> *does* take an argument, whereas DJGPP's getpgrp() does *not* take an
> argument.

IMHO, that configure script has a bug which should be fixed.  It
simply didn't consider that setpgrp might be absent.

> Right now, I'd just like to be able to add a "working" function to
> libc so this configure script will get the correct result.

It's better to fix the script and send the patches to the package
maintainer.  setpgrp isn't a Posix function, so packages shouldn't
assume it exists without checking.