From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-3.9 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 231A21F463 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:26:32 +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:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=d5Z7i st5zhhr567RyGRa839wzBd0kSeBgVmRZCphN1XSZkcKavb3+U/CkLzNoN1t3k2rx rfF4nlL8IFd0qX4ml8Jvs4puP1Vo18XDIL4lbNc+rwFzjJ6ch74PDLuVmBwEzkGu pdqE1kwo+50tY47irMbP7SCPR/rOmtrO5ZEF+k= 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:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=8uDH/FfINtf bbJxSWkEz6gjUX5k=; b=jVV54Wz3pas4T7SMOGtHuwtsNStsadBJIFrrSir72gW uaPf2GNNCgUB7bGPlLBy9VSMHi5q7rC7SdyqmFFgnxxQ6ExyaV/1+htoOITiRBMZ Pk9LXR+6niNg+3BzozVjgWvD5A/HxwsZtiAKrLFLShQGHd5tjmoQoCheNm7kfnNM = Received: (qmail 85588 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2019 13:26:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 85578 invoked by uid 89); 31 Dec 2019 13:26:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: albireo.enyo.de From: Florian Weimer To: Samuel Thibault Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: posix_openpt vs getpt?? References: <20191230213550.icqt2er7dwnxcrrb@function> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:25:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20191230213550.icqt2er7dwnxcrrb@function> (Samuel Thibault's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:35:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87a778mxta.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain * Samuel Thibault: > 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)... We don't have an in-tree BSD port, and the BSD at the time was probably quite different from what we have today. I suggest to ignore the comment and rearrange things in the way that make the most sense for Linux and Hurd.