From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5674 invoked by alias); 25 May 2006 07:12:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 5637 invoked by uid 48); 25 May 2006 07:12:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060525071228.5636.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "bettini at dsi dot unifi dot it" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20060521104128.2679.bettini@dsi.unifi.it> References: <20060521104128.2679.bettini@dsi.unifi.it> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/2679] getopt and optind (when called with different arguments) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bettini at dsi dot unifi dot it 2006-05-25 07:12 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > What "other implementations of getopt_long" do is irrelevant. This is a GNU > extension and whatever others implemented is a derivate. File bugs with those > implementations. > > Is see no problem with the existing code. Just use optind the way it is > required. If you think some documentation is missing provide a patch. All I'm saying is that, as I understand, the standard requires optind to be 1 at the beginning; I was wondering why not taking (optind == 1) as the initialization condition... Is there a reason why using (optind == 0)? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2679 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.