On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted text
> Honestly, I'd have to say that such platform header files are buggy ;-)

I agree, but getting various things changed is near impossible.  
Especially since they are either in a retired or unmaintained state.  
Although a few are still release updated products, they refuse to change 
them citeing backword compatibility.
 
quoted text
> If they want to use u_short and other custom types for their internal use,
> that is understandable and perfectly fine, and if they want to hide these
> names when _POSIX or _XOPEN is defined because you are not supposed to
> contaminate the namespace, that is also sensible, but at the same time you
> (not you, Boyd, but whoever developed the system header files) should have
> taken an alternate measure (perhaps by using __u_short or something) not
> to break the features they declare in the other header files of their own.

I agree +1

quoted text
> And not defining _XOPEN nor _POSIX would be a reasonable workaround to
> the problem on such systems.

Agreed.

Thanks,

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ	1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html