On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:24:58PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >On Thursday 19 November 2009 02:46:38 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 06:31:40PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >> >Why is the __nonnull(2) still there? Isn't the point of this to ensure >> > that the second argument _can_ be null? >> >> Please read the whole thread,
>Ah, I see, the second patch you posted in reply to Peter's comments had >unrelated changes made silently, and this was one. My bad, sorry I missed >that. I first sent a diff of the wrong tree, i.e. Mike's original note instead of a working patch. What do you mean by unrelated? Unrelated as in making realpath SUSv4 compliant? *shrug* _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc