Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS

To: tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
From: "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko%gmail.com@localhost>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:08:24 +0300

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon 
<tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost> wrote:
>> The _POSIX_SAVED_IDS shoud be greater than zero always as required by SUSv3.
> I do not believe we actually implement POSIX_SAVED_IDS.  It's an optional
> feature... and in the opinion of many, a very poorly designed one.
Why is the constant still present?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
  - From: Luke Mewburn

References:
- [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: Andy Shevchenko
- [PATCH 2/6] put proper value to the _POSIX_TZNAME_MAX
  - From: Andy Shevchenko
- [PATCH 3/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_JOB_CONTROL
  - From: Andy Shevchenko
- [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
  - From: Andy Shevchenko
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
  - From: Thor Lancelot Simon

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
Previous by Thread: Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
Next by Thread: Re: [PATCH 4/6] apply proper value for _POSIX_SAVED_IDS
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index