[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:26:26 -0500 |
> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:42:13 -0500
>
> Does msdos have <sys/ioctl.h> ?
It does, but this header defines DOS ioctl stuff, not the Posix ioctl
stuff. There's no emulation of the Posix ioctl functionality in the
standard C library used to build the DOS port.
> In a few places
> #ifndef MSDOS
> is used to avoid including it.
Yes, because doing so pollutes the namespace with gobs of symbols that
could get in the way.
> Other places use HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H
> process.c includes it unconditionally in the non-msdos part.
I see these places where sys/ioctl.h is included in Emacs:
- in process.c -- not relevant for MSDOS and included unconditionally
- in keyboard.c -- conditioned by MSDOS
- in sound.c -- conditioned by MSDOS
- in xterm.c -- only relevant for DOS if someone revives the old DOS
port of Xlib, which probably won't happen; conditioned by
HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H
- in systty.h -- conditioned by HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H
> It would be nicer to include it unconditionally everywhere, or to use
> the same conditional everywhere.
I could arrange for the MSDOS port to not define HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H, and
then we could use that everywhere.
- <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Dan Nicolaescu, 2010/11/17
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/19
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Dan Nicolaescu, 2010/11/20
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/20
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Dan Nicolaescu, 2010/11/20
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/21
- Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/26