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
