src/lib/libc/stdlib/getopt.c, branch releng/9.3

Per Regents of the University of Calfornia letter, remove advertising

2007-01-09T00:28:16Z

clause. # If I've done so improperly on a file, please let me know.

Merge some fixes from NetBSD's getopt.c v1.26:

2004-03-06T17:05:45Z

cleanups, handling 'ls -l-', handling '--*' Note this is in the same time back out of our v1.3 "Don't print an error message if the bad option is '?'" because it directly violates POSIX.

Do not use __progname directly (except in [gs]etprogname(3)).

2002-03-29T22:43:43Z

Also, make an internal _getprogname() that is used only inside libc. For libc, getprogname(3) is a weak symbol in case a function of the same name is defined in userland.

Fix the style of the SCM ID's.

2002-03-22T21:53:29Z

I believe have made all of libc .c's as consistent as possible.

If the string specifying the allowed options starts with a leading `:',

2001-08-16T03:27:03Z

`getopt(3)' should not print a warning for missing argument values. PR: bin/29625 Reviewed by: mikeh MFC after: 1 week

Don't print an error message if the bad option is '?'. This has been

2000-09-04T03:49:22Z

in my tree for a long time. bde reviewed this once upon a time and said it was OK, iirc. This also obviates the need to put ? in the optstring argument to preclude the extra warning message which some people think confuses users. When I made my getopt cleanups of a long time ago, this was the compromise reached. I just neglected to commit it until now.

Fix handling of trailing :'s to match what other OSes do (spit out

1999-12-17T01:52:15Z

a diagnostis). Submitted by: Guy Harris

Import CSRG 4.4BSD-Lite2 lib/libc onto vendor branch

1997-03-11T11:29:42Z