On Apr 22 07:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 10:37:50AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >I'm not sure this presumption is correct. The d_ino field is not marked > >as optional in SUSv3, it's marked as an XSI extension. The crux with > >XSI extensions is that (quote SuSv3) "Application writers may confidently > >make use of an extension on all systems supporting the X/Open System > >Interfaces Extension." This covers practically every serious system in > >the POSIX world right now. If we drop d_ino, I'd expect another round > >of suddenly broken applications. > > If there are programs out there which rely on d_ino then they are broken > on cygwin right now and have been for some time.
It's more the existance than the correctness what I'm taking about. I can easily imagine applications using d_ino only for keeping track of directory content. Mind you, I'm just concerned that dropping the struct member could affect applications. OTOH, that's what porting is for, isn't it? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
