ps at leissner.se
Tue Nov 19 08:17:04 CST 2002
> I am thinking about some netapi32 improvements where I'd need to call
> the functions of the getpw/getgr family: getpwnam(), getpwent(),
> getgrent(), etc.
> Configure checks for the "pwd.h" header and getpwuid(). Must
> I add more
> checks for all the functions I use, or is it ok to assume that
> getpwuid() presence implies getpwnam() presence?
Good question. I'm don't think we have any policy concerning this.
Perhaps we should have.
One thing that you shouldn't assume is for example that
if a function exists its reentrant variant exists as well.
For example that fact getpwnam exists doesn't imply that
getpwnam_r exists. And yes, you really should use the
reentrent variant if present as well as having an
alternative implementation if not.
As to the implict existance question: I'm not sure.
First of all, to answer the related question:
Should you have a alternative implementation for
defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && !defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM)?
IMHO the answer is no. It is not worth the effort to
support hypotetical platforms unless we can verify the
existance of one.
To return to the original question:
I suggest that we should detect the presence or absence
of ALL function we use that is verified not to exist on
some platform and have for example code like
#if defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) || defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) ||
# if (defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) + defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) +
defined(HAVE_GETPWENT)) == 3
# define __HAVE_GETPW
# error All or none of the functions getpwuid, getpwnam and getpwent are
assumed to exist
in order to formalize the assumptions and generate a common define to use in
More information about the wine-devel