tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: posix compliance test

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?

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index