> is it posixly correct to define _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO although we don't
> support msync?
No, I don't think it is (from looking at 1003.1-1996). That is, if
_POSIX_MAPPED_FILES and _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO are both defined, msync is
supposed to work. However, _POSIX_MAPPED_FILES means you have mmap et al;
so it's useful to define that since we do. _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO means
fsync and fdatasync work, so it's useful to define that since they do.
If we want to pedanticly comply, probably _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO is the one
that should go.
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
