RE: CVS update: /ccvs/ - cvsnt.dsp, readlink.c, xreadlink.c

[Conrad T. Pino]

Hi Mark,

> From: mdb@juniper.net (Mark D. Baushke)
> 
> > 2. File "lib/readlink.c" doesn't compile in Visual C++ 6.0 (VC6) and isn't
> > required for linking currently.
> 
> Hmmm... Why not?

I don't know.  Here are the error messages:

--------------------Configuration: libcvs - Win32 Debug--------------------
Compiling...
readlink.c
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(36) : error C2146: syntax error : 
missing ')' before identifier 'bufsize'
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(36) : error C2081: 'size_t' : name 
in formal parameter list illegal
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(36) : error C2061: syntax error : 
identifier 'bufsize'
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(36) : error C2059: syntax error : ';'
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(36) : error C2059: syntax error : ')'
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(37) : error C2449: found '{' at file 
scope (missing function header?)
h:\conrad\projects\cvs-1.12\lib\readlink.c(46) : error C2059: syntax error : '}'
Error executing cl.exe.

cvs.exe - 7 error(s), 0 warning(s)

> > Do you have any information that contradicts the assertion file
> > "lib/readlink.c" is NOT required for Windows build?
> 
> There is a '#undef HAVE_READLINK' in windows-NT/config.h{,.in,.in.in},
> so I am assuming that readlink() is needed because xreadlink() will need
> to call it.
> 
> I am under the impression that windows will therefore need a readlink()
> because xreadlink() needs it because other things call xreadlink().

Windows and VC6 don't have a "readlink" implementation.  File "lib/readlink.c"
may work as it relies on "stat" function which is there in Windows and VC6.

CVS has "readlink" implementation in "windows-NT/filesubr.c" of:

        /* Read the value of a symbolic link.
           Under Windows NT, this function always returns EINVAL.  */
        int
        readlink (char *path, char *buf, int buf_size)
        {
            errno = EINVAL;
            return -1;
        }

Given the above what's your opinion now?

>       Thanks,

You're welcome,

>       -- Mark

Conrad