On Mon, May 05, 2008, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 03:24:17 pm Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:59:28PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >On Monday 05 May 2008 02:40:03 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >> I'm _not_ objecting, just interested in why.
> > >>
> > >> Any references to discussions on this? Are we now safe for
> > >> future compat or something?
> > >
> > >Having FILE be opaque broke just about every 'configure' script on the
> > >planet. :(
> >
> > Either autoconf and friends are _intended_ as impediments to
> > portability or they are completely broken by design.
>
> It appears that autoconf only believes a type is real if you can typedef it
> to
> another type, cast 0 to a valid pointer to the new typedef'd type, and do a
> sizeof() of the typdef'd type. The last is where having an opaque type
> breaks down for scripts that want to make sure FILE is a real type.
I believe FILE is required to be a complete type, but it need not
expose any usable fields to applications. For instance,
typedef struct { char __pad[__FILE_LENGTH]; } FILE;
would be valid. I don't know whether that breaks lots of apps or
not. Of course that still makes it possible to write bogus apps
that depend on sizeof(FILE).
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
