Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 02:30:34PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> Hmm, the discussion seems to be based on the assumption that argv[0]
>> can be safely redirected to a different memory location. If that's the
>> case, we can prpbably rearrange the array, even if there's a small
>> window where ps might display a confusing command line, right?
> 
> If that's the extent of the breakage, then it seems alright to me.

Okay by me to live with this burden.

> I've attached a new version of the patch that omits the
> POSIXLY_CORRECT stuff.

This looks OK at quick glance, though you may want to document at the
top of getopt_long() the reordering business with the non-options?
--
Michael