Subject: Re: stdio FILE extension
To: None <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
From: Klaus Klein <kleink@reziprozitaet.de>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 10/20/2001 01:02:54
Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:56:07PM -0400, James Chacon wrote:
>
> > Any even then reading these changes that would affect the apps ability
> > to compile, not run. The struct should still map to the same place in the ABI
> > with these changes.
> >
> > Making stuff not compile is a lot less worrisome when it's stuff that's
> > already violating specs.
>
> I agree...
>
> So, really, I'd change _ub to be like this:
>
> union {
> struct __sbuf _ubu_ub;
> void *_ubu_intcookie;
> } _ub_u;
>
> to really insure that we break compilation of apps that use _ub.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but Yamamoto-san's change simply
renames the structure member from _ub to _ext; isn't that sufficient?
(Besides, like Todd I can imagine a processor ABI breaking binary
compatibility by introducing this union.)
- Klaus