Re: posix compliance test

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

In article <20131210091539.GI3185%danbala.tuwien.ac.at@localhost>,
Thomas Klausner  <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
>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?

As I mentioned in the beginning of the thread compliance tests find features
using sysconf() not configure tests. They expect the functions to be there,
and they just test them. Without the function presense we cannot even run
the compliance tests.

christo