Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:10:53 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Matthieu Michaud <matthieu@nxdomain.fr> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make struct timeval posix compliant ? Message-ID: <20071204201053.GA41843@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <47559FF0.5090008@nxdomain.fr> References: <47559FF0.5090008@nxdomain.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:44:00PM +0100, Matthieu Michaud wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Few months ago I sent a mail to stable@freebsd.org in the hope to discuss= =20 > struct timeval posix conformance in RELENG_6. >=20 > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1397BA88-CC55-4585-86CB-3BD08FBABEF5 >=20 > Given the few answers, I may have targetted the wrong mailing list or thi= s=20 > change has no interest. So, here are the questions again : >=20 > - Do you want FreeBSD 6 to conform posix specs for struct timeval ? (it's= =20 > not always a right thing to do to strictly conform standards) >=20 > - Is it ok to do it ? (if i'm correct there is a minor abi change and thi= s=20 > could be a strong reason to stay as is) With 7.0 about to be released and is fixed, I can't say I see much value compared to the potential disruption in the 6.x series (the fact that the patch corrects some printf statements demonstrates that there will be disruption). Is there something we'd get other than conformance? -- Brooks --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHVbRMXY6L6fI4GtQRAjEVAKCLAm8WE9Rh9V2dfyBk9CjFaPQLuQCfXZqv z/MsFyfN9T506SB+FusxiKk= =MmE6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071204201053.GA41843>