Subject: Re: iconv(3) prototype
From: Christos Zoulas <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 08/02/2004 08:02:01
On Aug 2,  6:44pm, ("T.SHIOZAKI") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: iconv(3) prototype

| I am sorry, I missed this mail.  Should I revert the changes?
| Or, I guess there is the way that I will leave the change,
| and add the mention about the weirdness of the POSIX specification
| to the BUGS section of iconv(3).

Just to be clear here (sorry no coffee). I meant that we should leave
the prototype the way it is now:

size_t  iconv           __P((iconv_t, char ** __restrict,
                             size_t * __restrict, char ** __restrict,
                             size_t * __restrict));

add the reasoning in the bugs section, and ask Klaus to discuss changing
it to const char **restrict in the POSIX committee meetings.