Re: renameat2

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Aug 19 18:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 19 10:29, Ken Brown wrote:
> > Hi Corinna,
> > 
> > On 8/19/2017 5:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Hi Ken,
> > > 
> > > On Aug 18 18:24, Ken Brown wrote:
> > > The patch is ok as is, just let me know what you think of the above
> > > minor tweak (and send the revised patch if you agree).
> > 
> > Yes, I agree.  But can't I also drop the third test (where you said "good
> > catch") for the same reason?  I've done that in the attached.  If I'm wrong
> > and I still need that third test, let me know and I'll put it back.
> 
> Nope, you're right.  Same rules apply for the third test.  Patch pushed.
> Doc changes coming? :)

Oh, one more thing.  This is a question to Yaakov, too.

diff --git a/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h b/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h
index 5d8cb1092..331a1cf07 100644
--- a/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h
+++ b/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h
@@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ int _EXFUN(vdprintf, (int, const char *__restrict, __VALIST)
 #endif
 #if __ATFILE_VISIBLE
 int    _EXFUN(renameat, (int, const char *, int, const char *));
+# ifdef __CYGWIN__
+int    _EXFUN(renameat2, (int, const char *, int, const char *, unsigned int));
+# endif
 #endif

Does it makes sense to guard the renameat2 prototype more extensively
to cater for standards junkies?  __MISC_VISIBLE, perhaps?


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature