Parameter mismatch legality question

[Karl Heuer]

In article <571 at mtndew.Tustin.CA.US> friedl at mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) writes:
>In article <14502 at smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>... you're best off if you let <fcntl.h> declare open() for you.
>
>Unless of course you are IBM building the RS6000, where the prototype
>in <fcntl.h> omits the /const/ type qualifier on the pathname.  Mighty
>nice of them not to burden us with qualifiers, eh?

In this case it's still true that the correct action is use <fcntl.h>
rather than declaring it yourself; but you should also reject the broken
implementation and replace it with a working one.

In the situation you describe, the simplest way to get a working
implementation is to edit the vendor's <fcntl.h> to fix the bug, or if this
isn't feasible, to maintain your own copy of the include directory.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl at ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint