Re: posix compliance test

[David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 10 December 2013 14:02, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> 
wrote:
> In article <20131210091539.GI3185%danbala.tuwien.ac.at@localhost>,
> Thomas Klausner  <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:17:50AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> We could require a #define __NetBSD_unimplemented__ to be defined to
>>> make them header visible. But they would still be library visible. Is
>>> that ok?
>>
>>The way configure scripts are written in general, I don't think that's
>>a good idea. When configure scripts find functions, they expect them
>>to be useful.
>>
>>Why do we need to fake unavailable functions at all?
>
> As I mentioned in the beginning of the thread compliance tests find features
> using sysconf() not configure tests. They expect the functions to be there,
> and they just test them. Without the function presense we cannot even run
> the compliance tests.

How about putting all the EOPNOTSUPP/EINVAL stubs into a single .c
which is just built along with the compliance tests?