Subject: Re: Switching from old-style getopt to new-style one
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 11/03/2000 17:52:12
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Greywolf wrote:
: # > A getopt(3) replacement MUST function IDENTICALLY to getopt(3) as it has
: # > been in libc with option strings that already exist. No exceptions; this is
: # > ABI compatibility.
: # I don't really get this argument -- doesn't it sometimes happen that a
: # libc change mandates that some userland programs have to be recompiled
: # (perhaps with a libc minor bump)? There are only a handful programs
: # that would have to be recompiled (see the patch, and perhaps some more
: # I hadn't thought of).
: The kind of changes that warrant bumping the minor number are usually
The "ABI" is more then the ELFness of the binaries and the function
symbols; scripts written by third parties depend on the old behavior, and
the options passed to the commands are part of the "ABI" as it's often
used. However, this is more a technical point of terminology.
Basically, the point of the statement is that there's already stuff out
there that depends on this behavior when exec()ing programs.
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> * http://www.wasabisystems.com/
-- Speed, stability, security, and support. Wasabi NetBSD: Run with it.