On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:27:03 -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ralph Siegler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >>>>> I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot >>>>> are both missing #include <unistd.h> even though they use getopt. >>>>> It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is >>>>> not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile >>>>> OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. >>>> >>>> I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h >>> ... >>>> So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is "not the correct >>>> header file"....looking at links in your post, do you really mean >>>> "FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet >>>> might"? >>> >>> He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that >>> that *in a conforming compilation environment* <unistd.h> MUST declare >>> getopt() and <stdlib.h> MUST NOT declare getopt(). >>> >>> (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a >>> free registration, don'cha?) >>> >>> >>> Philip Guenther >> >> Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant >> OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But >> neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. >> >> On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, >> and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header >> files.......but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the >> libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than >> one code porter. >> >> Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind >> quarters but will compile and run code having those >> functions......which is better? > > Yes, de facto standards can be important. > > Now, does this issue in particular--namely, the decision of which header > declares getopt()--merit reconsideration? Should OpenBSD or another OS > depart from POSIX in this regard? If so, what is the motivation? > >
OpenBSD uses the magic of #ifndef to get away with defining it in two places, so following POSIX (and the OpenBSD man page) and #include <unistd.h> gets the getopt(3) and so Eitan should be happy. But back in the pre-1992 POSIX.2 days, it was defined (as least in some Unix I know) to be in stdlib.h. And lo and behold OpenBSD will define it there if it hasn't been defined yet. This can make old coots like me happy in the event we want to play with our old coot code from days of yore. Don't let young whippersnappers take away our security blankets, like that meanie who posted patch for removing old-EBCDIC support from a command and only leaving new fangled EBCDIC. Ralph (older than Unix)
