Re: posix compliance test

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Dec 10,  2:02pm, Christos Zoulas 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.

     If we can't even compile the compliance tests, then it must
be that we're not compliant.  :->

}-- End of excerpt from Christos Zoulas