Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
>> glibc defines strcasecmp in both string.h and strings.h, dietlibc only
>> in strings.h
>
> Since strcasecmp() is not in ISO C standard, it's normal to *not* expect
> it to be defined in <string.h>. Besides, this is a BSD extension and
> <strings.h> sounds reasonable for it.
agreed, but if dietlibc means to be a lightweit replacement for glibc it
should bend to glibc quirks.
> >> nftw
>> dietlibc has a prototype for nftw, but does not implement it, neither
>> defines FTW_PHYS, FTW_MOUNT, FTW_DEPTH or FTW_CHDIR (used in th 4th arg
>> to nftw
>
> If you can provide a testcase, I would be happy to include it too.
what do you mean 'testcase', an app that needs ntfw? mdadm
in util.c:
char *map_dev(int major, int minor)
{
struct devmap *p;
if (!devlist_ready) {
nftw("/dev", add_dev, 10, FTW_PHYS);
devlist_ready=1;
}
for (p=devlist; p; p=p->next)
if (p->major == major &&
p->minor == minor)
return p->name;
return NULL;
}
>> should i file bugs on dietlibc, or go bother the original dietlibc
>> authors?
>
> Depends if I write fixes soonish, which is something that can't happen
> for 9.2 I am afraid.
>
mmmm,
dietlibc is in main, so i would only fix the the string.h gcc3 one for
9.2 and think about providing the nftw and modified getopt for post 9.2,
would you accept patches before 9.2 if i was able to provide them?
(and i don't imply i have any time for this)
regards,
L.
--
Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
