From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-108367-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
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-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-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Envelope-From:sk:samuel., notably
X-HELO: hera.aquilenet.fr
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:35:00 -0000
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)
X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00799.txt.bz2

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