It's not defined by POSIX and Linux doesn't seem to have it. (I see that POSIX does define EOPNOTSUPP, though, which probably originates in some idiot not knowing about the existence of ENOTSUP. Since it's now enshrined in a standard as a distinct errno I don't suppose it will go away now :-()
That's just because of the rule that at least 50% of errnos must be specific to sockets and thus of no use to anyone else. Maybe they needed to make up the numbers.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-03 11:07 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2003-12-03 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-03 11:29 am (UTC)We don't seem to have it, no. But then we aren't POSIX compliant either. Though I might investigate why we don't have EUNKNOWN, it sounds useful.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-03 02:15 pm (UTC)It's not defined by POSIX and Linux doesn't seem to have it. (I see that POSIX does define EOPNOTSUPP, though, which probably originates in some idiot not knowing about the existence of ENOTSUP. Since it's now enshrined in a standard as a distinct errno I don't suppose it will go away now :-()
no subject
Date: 2003-12-04 03:31 am (UTC)That's just because of the rule that at least 50% of errnos must be specific to sockets and thus of no use to anyone else. Maybe they needed to make up the numbers.