Re: No prototype for readdir_r

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>]

On 11/15/2013 1:41 PM, Craig Howland wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 01:49 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I noticed that readdir_r() does not have a prototype.
>> It should be in dirent.h. I am happy to add it to
>> the RTEMS dirent.h but there are other versions of
>> this file and
>>
>> ./libc/include/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/include/dirent.h
>> ./libc/machine/spu/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/rtems/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/decstation/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/sun4/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/linux/bits/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/linux/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/sparc64/sys/dirent.h
>> ./libc/sys/sysvi386/sys/dirent.h
>>
>> I can drop the prototype in those at the same time.
>>
>> And ... Linux man page shows these guards. What should
>> they be on newlib?
>>
>>      _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 1 || _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE ||
>>      _SVID_SOURCE || _POSIX_SOURCE
>>
>       It probably is not worth bothering with a guard.
>       dirent.h is not in the C standard, so there is no gate needed based on 
> it.  (Someone could say that with your sample gate that it would be skipped with 
> STRICT_ANSI, but from that point of view, dirent.h should not even be included.)
>       POSIX says is was added in issue 2, which is so ancient that it seems 
> unreasonable to add something now to avoid it for someone trying to use issue 
> 1.  (I think that the guard would probably be _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 199209 to be 
> for issue 2, assuming that sys/cdefs.h has been included before the check.)  I 
> don't know why GLIBC's test is for 1, instead of 2.

So you would lean to just adding it to every dirent.h
without a guard? If so, that's really easy. :)

>       Craig
> 



-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985