Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function

To: NetBSD tech-userlevel <tech-userlevel%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Subject: Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function
From: Paul Ripke <stix%stix.id.au@localhost>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:57:18 +1000

TL;DR: Our dirfd(3) is a macro, boost expects a function. POSIX
appears to require a function but allow an additional macro.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD & Linux all provide functions. Perhaps we should,
too?

Additional details are in my msg to tech-pkg@:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2020/09/09/msg023780.html

Cheers,
-- 
Paul Ripke
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds
 discuss people."
-- Disputed: Often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt. 1948.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function
  - From: Kamil Rytarowski
- Re: Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function
  - From: Robert Elz

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Make more of stdlib.h visible if _NETBSD_SOURCE isn't defined
Next by Date: Re: Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function
Previous by Thread: [PATCH] Avoid defining _NETBSD_SOURCE for strict C++
Next by Thread: Re: Our dirfd(3) is a macro not a function
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index