From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-108367-e=80x24.org@sourceware.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25A151F463
	for <e@80x24.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:36:00 +0000 (UTC)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=KWS7HVgaOia+74dznAFUAwbuEO8Jk
	dE+e6+XqegKwbK88ZL4g0IQCEHXFk7CU/9qB6FEFFcnVkK1hGZhAsNZX6XwbYV6m
	46gloVP+dqv04Ic297rR1l/J9dVd6nDPB2Wln15pLY4ycHZu0/cHHlal9uN4+Cdr
	FHcBB/ykaeQyHk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type; s=default; bh=2k4pyQ2wMR0y/q/W1lbXbxtCpzU=; b=dIu
	NWctX5spjUzWvKFC812juP8Cbt6P4P7QF8IMSIdqWAE9E332lKxXV0VW6zNnlr1L
	L9o0FhRP+tl7dnWBJCGJd0bf+dsok9E1FczYb9/c+IT+twU1S7cTceL37S0hrPHx
	Dbm9JERXlxg9k02FOR/eXP680dWBicXVhWQ/mnVw=
Received: (qmail 112831 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2019 21:35:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-unsubscribe-e=80x24.org@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 112823 invoked by uid 89); 30 Dec 2019 21:35:56 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-HELO: hera.aquilenet.fr
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:35:50 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: posix_openpt vs getpt??
Message-ID: <20191230213550.icqt2er7dwnxcrrb@function>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)

Hello,

In sysdeps/unix/bsd/getpt.c we can read:

/* We cannot define posix_openpt in general for BSD systems.  */

I do not see why posix_openpt can't be defined like getpt is. Is there
a semantic difference between them beyond the open flags that could be
just passed to the open() call?  Notably, Linux' getpt() is actually
implemented as __posix_openpt (O_RDWR)...

Samuel