Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> We don't have a trace of O_ACCMODE in the tree, and POSIX defines it.
> I'm wondering how the buildfarm would react on that, but perhaps
> that's fine on !WIN32. It's hard to say with all the hosts there, at
> least the CI is OK.
POSIX has required O_ACCMODE in fcntl.h at least since 2008,
if I'm reading things correctly. So it's probably safe to
depend on this symbol. Still, I'd like to be closer to having
a working Hurd buildfarm member before we take a portability
risk that would only benefit Hurd.
> Another thing that may be worth considering is if we should remove
> this sanity check.
Nah.
regards, tom lane
