Re: Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Paul Eggert wrote:

>Derek Price <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>  
>
>>+         myargv[[0]] = "conftest";
>>+         myargv[[1]] = "-+";
>>    
>>
>
>This doesn't null-terminate myargv.
>
>But I still don't get why the change is needed.  It sounds like you're
>assuming Solaris 11 getopt might get fixed?  
>

Yes, I suppose so, or a later patch release of Solaris 10.  Or some
other system that decides to ship a getopt.h with a getopt_long(),
getopt_clip(), and a GNU compatible getopt(), however unlikely that may
sound now.

>But even in that case,
>the current code will work, right, since it will use GNU getopt?  So
>this is just an optimization for the hypothetical case if Solaris 11
>getopt gets fixed?  
>

Basically.  I was feeling guilty about not detecting the bug, but
detecting a feature of the system and assuming the bug.  This goes
against the whole Autoconf test design philosophy, I thought.  It's
almost as bad as using `uname -a |sed' to detect the version number and
using that to decide against the system getopt(), really.

The new test detects the actual bug.

>In that case perhaps we should wait for Solaris 11
>and test it before installing this patch, as it's more likely to cause
>a bug than to fix one.
>  
>

What sort of bug are you worried about?

Regards,

Derek