Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 04:51:55 +0200 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Unified getcwd() implementation Message-ID: <20040509025155.GA4475@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20040508150312.GA7381@VARK.homeunix.com> References: <20040507092235.GA61837@stack.nl> <20040507100119.GA15782@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040507235556.GB37035@empiric.dek.spc.org> <20040508010228.GA18935@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040508012357.GA37547@empiric.dek.spc.org> <20040508030258.GA19512@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040508044207.GB38736@empiric.dek.spc.org> <20040508070040.GA20138@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040508135954.GA469@stack.nl> <20040508150312.GA7381@VARK.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:03:12AM -0700, David Schultz wrote: > > standards/44425 mentions why the current implementation is not a bug in > > the standards point of view. > > > > bin/22291, kern/30527, kern/39331 and kern/55993 are about issues we > > have because of the current implementation. > > 30527 seems to be unrelated... Erhm, sorry, that should've been 39527... Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040509025155.GA4475>