[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#14351: marked as done (libc6-dev: putw not declared?)



Your message dated Tue, 11 May 1999 07:15:52 -0700
with message-id <v04204e02b35dbedd995a@[206.163.71.146]>
and subject line Fixed or no longer applicable.
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Nov 1997 12:43:45 +0000
Received: (qmail 24121 invoked from network); 3 Nov 1997 12:43:44 -0000
Received: from penguin.wi.leidenuniv.nl (HELO penguin) (0@penguin.wi.leidenuniv.nl@132.229.128.117)
  by 205.229.104.5 with SMTP; 3 Nov 1997 12:43:44 -0000
Received: by penguin
	id m0xSLqi-001FWQC
	(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:43:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <19971103134320.39430@penguin>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:43:20 +0100
From: "J.H.M. Dassen" <jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: libc6-dev: putw not declared?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.85
Organization: SEIS group, CS dept., Leiden University
X-System: Debian GNU/Linux 1.3, kernel 2.0.31

Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.0.5c-0.1

libc6's documentation (File: libc.info,  Node: Simple Output) as well as the
old getw(3) manpage) says that putw is declared in stdio.h; however, when
compiling code that has included <stdio.h>, I get
file.cc:498: warning: implicit declaration of function `int putw(...)'

-- System Information
Debian Release: 1.3
Kernel Version: Linux penguin.wi.leidenuniv.nl 2.0.31 #1 Mon Oct 20 12:55:38 CEST 1997 i586 unknown
-- 
Ray Dassen <jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl>


Reply to: