Re: mmap(): MAP_ANON vs. MAP_ANONYMOUS

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Justin Cormack 
<justin%specialbusservice.com@localhost> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Richard Hansen <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost> 
> wrote:
>> NetBSD developers,
>> 
>> The Austin Group (POSIX standards body) is considering standardizing
>> mmap() with anonymous memory:
>> 
>>    http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=850
>> 
>> The current draft of the new wording (see comment #2281) uses
>> MAP_ANONYMOUS as the name of the mmap() flag.  NetBSD only defines
>> MAP_ANON, but otherwise seems conformant to the proposed wording.
>> 
>> Would you be opposed to defining MAP_ANONYMOUS as a synonym for
>> MAP_ANON?  Would you prefer POSIX to specify MAP_ANON instead?
> 
> I would not be against us adding a synonym; I didn't realise FreeBSD
> already had. I admit to forgetting which system uses which and having
> to look it up frequently, but slightly prefer MAP_ANON.

Already done.  MAP_ANONYNOUS has the value and MAP_ANON refers to 
MAP_ANONYMOUS.