On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:48 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 7 10:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 7 07:36, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As long as all non-POSIX (e.g. Cygwin-specific) _SC_xxx definitions are
properly guarded, adding POSIX-compliant _SC_xxx definitions is fine
with us - As far as can tell Corinna's patch seem OK for us.
Uh, there's one problem here. There are four definitions which are
non-POSIX:
... then, I must have missed them ;)
/* CYGWIN-specific values .. do not touch */
#define _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF 9
#define _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN 10
#define _SC_PHYS_PAGES 11
#define _SC_AVPHYS_PAGES 12
/* end of CYGWIN-specific values */
These have been added back in 2000, and they were never guarded with
an `#ifdef __CYGWIN__'. All four values are supported by Linux, FWIW.
When I patched sys/unistd.h yesterday, I contemplated the idea to
guard them. However, since they were *never guarded, I don't know
if they aren't actually supported by RTEMS.
They aren't - We only support a very limited subset of them at all ;)
That's why I left them
unguarded. Is that ok with you?
Technically yes - They don't cause any problems for RTEMS.
Personal preference, no, but ...
btw., if you also use them, I would remove the above comments. They
wouldn't make sense, right?
Are they used by anybody but cygwin?
The only reason for me preferring seeing them guarded is
"generality/os-independence/cleanliness" of the code. Given the fact
they had been present before, it's nothing I want to insist on.