From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-108373-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
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: <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 85578 invoked by uid 89); 31 Dec 2019 13:26:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=
X-HELO: albireo.enyo.de
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: posix_openpt vs getpt??
References: <20191230213550.icqt2er7dwnxcrrb@function>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:26:00 -0000
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
X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00805.txt.bz2

* 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.