B Harder <brad.harder%gmail.com@localhost> writes: > It seems I can fts_open() w/o supplying either of, (or supplying both > of) FTS_PHYSICAL and FTS_LOGICAL. The man page (FTS(3)) repeatedly > says "Either FST_LOGICAL or FTS_PHYSICAL _must_ be provided" > > I can supply 0 as a flag, or FTS_LOGICAL|FTS_PHYSICAL, and no error is > set (assuming would receive NULL FTS*). > > Can anybody comment on what I'm seeing here? I would suggest reading the sources and seeing what FTS_LOGICAL and FTS_PHYSICAL are defined as (they are different, both non-zero), and then the code that processes this. Arguably it should be changed to check the requirements and error, but there may be intentional compatibility with other implementations that don't pay such close attention to standards as we try to do :-)
Attachment:
pgpSsr1j6QtxY.pgp
Description: PGP signature