[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140727223044.GA10396@euler>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:30:44 +0200
From: Felix Janda <felix.janda@...teo.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: More GNU semantics for getopt_long?
Rich Felker wrote:
[..]
> > > > I noticed that there is a patch from Michael Forney on the mailing
> > > > list implementing the abbreviated options but there were not any
> > > > comments on it.
> > >
> > > Yes that's it.
> >
> > Thanks for revisiting the patch.
>
> Have you tried it and confirmed that it solves your problem and
> doesn't introduce any bugs that you immediately notice? I'd like to
> include it in the upcoming release but I don't want to introduce a
> stupid regression from lack of testing...
I did some tests right now. The abbreviated options seem to work.
If the long option abbreviation is ambiguous, patched musl's
getopt_long will return the last match in the longopts array instead
of '?'.
I also noticed that 66fcde4ae4a52ae3edb1cf237ce2c22d08d7a062 seems
to have broken getopt_long: Even if optstring does not begin with
':', getopt_long will return ':' if a long option is not supplied
by its required argument.
Felix
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
