| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
getopt(3): recognize option:: as GNU extension for "optional options".
Also ANSIfy a function declaration.
While here update the OpenBSD patch level in getopt_long.c as we
already have the corresponding change.
Obtained from: NetBSD
MFC after: 2 weeks
|
|
|
|
|
| |
NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Android's Bionic number the clauses 1 through 3,
so follow suit to make comparison easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
clause.
# If I've done so improperly on a file, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
cleanups, handling 'ls -l-', handling '--*'
Note this is in the same time back out of our v1.3
"Don't print an error message if the bad option is '?'"
because it directly violates POSIX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also, make an internal _getprogname() that is used only inside
libc. For libc, getprogname(3) is a weak symbol in case a
function of the same name is defined in userland.
|
|
|
|
| |
I believe have made all of libc .c's as consistent as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`getopt(3)' should not print a warning for missing argument values.
PR: bin/29625
Reviewed by: mikeh
MFC after: 1 week
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
in my tree for a long time. bde reviewed this once upon a time and
said it was OK, iirc. This also obviates the need to put ? in the
optstring argument to preclude the extra warning message which some
people think confuses users. When I made my getopt cleanups of a long
time ago, this was the compromise reached. I just neglected to commit
it until now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a diagnostis).
Submitted by: Guy Harris <gharris@flashcom.net>
|
| |
|
|
|