This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: No prototype for readdir_r
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Craig Howland <howland at LGSInnovations dot com>, "newlib at sourceware dot org" <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:16 -0600
- Subject: Re: No prototype for readdir_r
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52866CB8 dot 1040409 at oarcorp dot com> <52867904 dot 8020703 at LGSInnovations dot com>
On 11/15/2013 1:41 PM, Craig Howland wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 01:49 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> I noticed that readdir_r() does not have a prototype.
>> It should be in dirent.h. I am happy to add it to
>> the RTEMS dirent.h but there are other versions of
>> this file and
>> I can drop the prototype in those at the same time.
>> And ... Linux man page shows these guards. What should
>> they be on newlib?
>> _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 1 || _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE ||
>> _SVID_SOURCE || _POSIX_SOURCE
> It probably is not worth bothering with a guard.
> dirent.h is not in the C standard, so there is no gate needed based on
> it. (Someone could say that with your sample gate that it would be skipped with
> STRICT_ANSI, but from that point of view, dirent.h should not even be included.)
> POSIX says is was added in issue 2, which is so ancient that it seems
> unreasonable to add something now to avoid it for someone trying to use issue
> 1. (I think that the guard would probably be _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 199209 to be
> for issue 2, assuming that sys/cdefs.h has been included before the check.) I
> don't know why GLIBC's test is for 1, instead of 2.
So you would lean to just adding it to every dirent.h
without a guard? If so, that's really easy. :)
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985