[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: umode_t?
From: |
Eric Gillespie |
Subject: |
Re: umode_t? |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:58:42 -0500 |
David Mosberger writes:
> Isn't the poinit of AC_CHECK_TYP(umode_t, int) that if umode_t isn't
> defined already, it will get defined as an "int"?
Yes, but then there are all kinds of casting problems. That needs to
be fixed too, for systems without umode_t at all, but it led me to the
question about umode_t not being in sys/types.h.
> You'll need to talk to glibc maintainers as to whether umode_t should
> or should not be defined. I don't keep track of the latest name space
> rules.
OK, glibc people: Why don't you get umode_t by including sys/types.h?
As far as i can tell, you have to include asm/types.h to get it;
clearly not an option for an autoconf macro.
--
Eric Gillespie, Jr. <*> address@hidden
Software Developer
Progeny Linux Systems - http://progeny.com
"I don't know what a Sawfish Window Manager is."
- Re: umode_t?,
Eric Gillespie <=