Re: syslog_L 2
At 2002/3/25 21:27-0500 Joey Hess writes:
> The test does a setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG|LOG_WARNING)). This does not
> seem to be a valid way to call LOG_MASK in glibc; I don't know about POSIX.
> glibc wants it to be called like this:
> setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG)|LOG_MASK(LOG_WARNING))
>
> Note that the log priorities are numbered, 0 through 7, and are so not
> directly or'able. That's why LOG_MASK exists, no?
>
SUSv3 seems to imply that it is ok to use them directly or'able. One
of the examples does exactly that:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/toc.htm
So perhaps it is a glibc bug in defining them the way they have.
Regards,
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: