Re: posix compliance test

To: Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: posix compliance test
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:15:39 +0100

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:17:50AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 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?

The way configure scripts are written in general, I don't think that's
a good idea. When configure scripts find functions, they expect them
to be useful.

Why do we need to fake unavailable functions at all?
 Thomas

Follow-Ups:
- Re: posix compliance test
  - From: Christos Zoulas

References:
- posix compliance test
  - From: Christos Zoulas
- Re: posix compliance test
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: posix compliance test
  - From: Christos Zoulas

Prev by Date: Re: posix compliance test
Next by Date: Re: posix compliance test
Previous by Thread: Re: posix compliance test
Next by Thread: Re: posix compliance test
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index