From xemacs-m  Sat Jun  7 13:11:18 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03760
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:11:16 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id UAA21686; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 20:11:17 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: 20.3b4 linux success (more or less)
References: <E0waCcL-0001bl-00@neptune.corp.comsat.com> <199706070649.XAA12382@xemacs.eng.sun.com> <u9bu5ifg0c.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 07 Jun 1997 20:11:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: Neal Becker's message of 07 Jun 1997 14:02:27 -0400
Message-ID: <kig3equp9kr.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.3(beta4)

Neal Becker <neal@ctd.comsat.com> writes:

> Getcwd was detected, as was getwd.  But I suspect that in case both
> are present, getwd is preferred.  I think in that case getcwd should
> be preferred.

Definitely.  Newish Linux linkers even issue a warning about getwd
being an unsafe function and better not used.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword.

