On 10/04/2018 03:48 PM, enh wrote: > yeah, and right now we have exactly one macro for which we need this... > > ...and an alternative fix would be to just drop the UUCP feature from > getconf. GNU getconf doesn't support it (somewhat obviously), and > Android is always going to say "no", and i'm not expecting a great > UUCP renaissance any time soon where it suddenly becomes relevant > again.
Trimming the UUCP feature sounds fine to me, although I need to revisit the whole mess of: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getconf.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/sysconf.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/confstr.html At some point... Possibly what I need is an #ifdef/#else staircase for all those symbols in a header file, which can be generated once from the actual posix spec and then ignored. (I don't care about ugly in header files. I just don't want the data in two places that have to be kept in sync...) > (but i'm still interested to see that's even possible with the > preprocessor. i've long believed it wasn't.) Preprocessor combined with the ? : operator working on a constant first argument so the test optimizes out, maybe? (If C11 or C18 had added _is_defined(x) and macro_or_default(x, y) instead of all the useless nonsense it _did_ add, I'd care a lot more about them...) But at the moment I'm tired after a long day of sitting in a cubicle and trying to work through company politics and history to figure out what (if anything) the technical requirements for various Change Requests are, besides which I shouldn't be thinking about this for another hour anyway. :) Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
