At 2002/3/25 21:27-0500 Joey Hess writes: > The test does a setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG|LOG_WARNING)). This does not > seem to be a valid way to call LOG_MASK in glibc; I don't know about POSIX. > glibc wants it to be called like this: > setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG)|LOG_MASK(LOG_WARNING)) > > Note that the log priorities are numbered, 0 through 7, and are so not > directly or'able. That's why LOG_MASK exists, no? >
SUSv3 seems to imply that it is ok to use them directly or'able. One of the examples does exactly that: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/toc.htm So perhaps it is a glibc bug in defining them the way they have. Regards, Chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
