Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:14819 comp.unix.wizards:13508
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!uflorida!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: wait(<sometype> *ptr)
Message-ID: <15028@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 88 14:30:16 GMT
References: <1886@loral.UUCP> <1082@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <9189@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 17

In article <9189@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>...  In fact, Berkeley broke the non-null case too by changing
>it from pointing to an int to pointing to a "union wait".  It should be
>a pointer-to-int.

For once, I actually agree with Doug Gwyn :-) .

The 4.3BSD-tahoe <sys/wait.h> is full of `#ifdef's to determine the
byte order for a `union wait'.  This is grotesque and---perhaps worse---
insufficient, as a `wait' object contains bitfields as well, and while
the ifdef's can account for byte order differences, they do not now do
so for bit order differences.  Were one to add those, the file would
become yet more grotesque.  Instead, the various operations that are
now bit fields should be done with function-like macros.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris