On Friday 11 September 2009 19:52:09 Rob Landley wrote:
> My question is what standards is uClibc built against? C99 has been out
> for a decade, and C89 (ala "ANSI C") has been out for 20 years, but the
> readpath.c code starts with:
>
> #ifdef __STDC__
> char *realpath(const char *path, char got_path[])
> #else
> char *realpath(path, got_path)
> const char *path;
> char got_path[];
> #endif
> {
>
> Kernighan and Ritchie prototypes? From 1978? Really?
>
> Is that honestly still necessary? I'm attempting to deal with the fact
> that the 2.6 kernel series hasn't really got a PATH_MAX anymore, can I
> clean this out too while I'm there?this is just code that no one has touched because it hasnt been a problem. but no, we do not require support of these old prototype styles. if someone were to remove it, that's perfectly fine. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
