On Thursday 28 February 2008 13:05, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > +int gettimeofday(struct timeval *tv, void *tz) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > Should it not return -1, for failure? (I know, I know, probably a few > programs do not work, then, but it is not correct that it succeeded.) > > The same goes for a few other functions. Agreed. The return value of these functions should not make a difference at this stage in the patch series anyway. > > +#ifdef __MINGW32__ > > +int mkstemp(char *template); > > +#endif > > + > > static inline int xmkstemp(char *template) > > { > > int fd; > > Could we have this... No, becauser xmkstemp needs the forward declaration of mkstemp(). But we could make it unconditional. > ... and this in compat/mingw.h? And then, we'd only have > > #ifdef __MINGW32__ > #include "mingw.h" > #endif > > in git-compat-util.h? I thought about this, but I decided against it: git-compat-util.h is the place to look for compatibility functions. A file compat/mingw.h only introduces an extra indirection and only *hides* stuff instead of making it obvious. -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html