Re: posix compliance test

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20131209224921.GA2229%britannica.bec.de@localhost>,
Joerg Sonnenberger  <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:47:55PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> I think that supplying the function and returning an error is better and
>> will let the tests work without causing excessive ifdefing of the sources.
>
>I don't agree with this completely. Process-shared mutexes are
>fundamentally not supported by our lwp_park/lwp_unpark interface without
>jumping through a lot of hops. Failing the enable call therefore is
>huge semantic change and checking for a working function a much harder
>requirement than checking for the presence of a function.

We could require a #define __NetBSD_unimplemented__ to be defined to
make them header visible. But they would still be library visible. Is
that ok?

christos