Re: ioctl question

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA@localhost>]

> However the defintiion for ioctl() is currently:
>     int ioctl(int, int, ...)
> This is portable since the '...' arg is usually a pointer, but could
> be an int (or long) but the calling convention is assumed to be that
> for 'void *'.

I take it there's a "not" missing applied to "portable"?

This is portable as far as application code is concerned.  Our
implementation is not portable to architectures where the various
relevant types are passed differently, but so what?  Porting to such a
machine means, among other things, designing an implementation of
ioctl() that works for that architecture.

/~\ The ASCII                           der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML               mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B