From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5033 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: adding errc to support sed (FreeBSD) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 20:04:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20140504000453.GA16268@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <536582B8.5030304@midipix.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1399161914 14841 80.91.229.3 (4 May 2014 00:05:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 00:05:14 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5037-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun May 04 02:05:08 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WgjvW-0006wC-UE for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 02:05:07 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1437 invoked by uid 550); 4 May 2014 00:05:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 1426 invoked from network); 4 May 2014 00:05:06 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <536582B8.5030304@midipix.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5033 Archived-At: On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 07:58:48PM -0400, writeonce@midipix.org wrote: > Greetings, > > The FreeBSD implementation of sed uses errc; its implementation > should probably be as simple as: > > _Noreturn void errc(int eval, int status, const char *fmt, ...) > { > va_list ap; > va_start(ap, fmt); > vwarnx(status, fmt, ap); > va_end(ap); > exit(eval); > } What's the difference between this and other forms in err.h? Is there a 'v' version of it too? > The FreeBSD sed also needs a couple of macros that are currently not > defined, specifically ALLPERMS, DEFFILEMODE and REG_STARTEND. Any > reason not to add them when _BSD_SOURCE is defined? Where would these be defined? If they're in a junk header I'm not so opposed to them, but musl aims to have a cleaner namespace than legacy systems, whereas at least ALLPERMS and DEFFILEMODE are ugly and don't fit any sort of namespace pattern. As for REG_STARTEND, is it an alias for some regex flag that already exists, or a feature that would need to be implemented? Rich