Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:36:57 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
Message-ID: <20230613223657.GC219055@nathanxps13>
References: <20230609232257.GA121461@nathanxps13>
 <20230613.120001.2091320520660271559.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20230613051343.GA211254@nathanxps13>
 <20230613.160201.833376179512503274.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230613.160201.833376179512503274.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230613223657.GC219055%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 04:02:01PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hmm. from the initial mail, I got the impression that AIX and Windows
> allow this, so I thought that we can do that for them.  While there
> could be other platforms that allow it, perhaps we don't need to go as
> far as extending this until we come across another platform that does.

Windows seems to allow rearranging argv, based upon cfbot's results.  I do
not know about AIX.  In any case, C99 explicitly mentions that argv should
be modifiable.

>> > As far as I can see, getopt_long on Rocky9 does *not* rearrange argv
>> > until it reaches the end of the array. But it won't matter much.
>> 
>> Do you mean that it rearranges argv once all the options have been
>> returned, or that it doesn't rearrange argv at all?
> 
> I meant the former. argv remains unaltered until getopt_long returns
> -1. Once it does, non-optional arguments are being collected at the
> end of argv.  (But in my opinion, that behavior isn't very significant
> in this context..)

Got it.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com