This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Apr 20 11:48, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 20/04/16 10:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Hi Sebastian, > > > >On Apr 18 15:29, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >>Provide cap_rights_t via <sys/types.h> if __BSD_VISIBLE for BSD > >>compatibility. > >Do we really want to clutter the namespace with all these very > >FreeBSD-centric types? I'm mostly concerned about this struct > >cap_rights, but also many of the other types are rather... uncommon. > >I checked their existence on OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Linux, and none of > >them define those: > > > > addr_t > > accmode_t > > cap_rights/cap_rights_t > > c_caddr_t > > cpulevel_t > > cpusetid_t > > cpuwhich_t > > uintfptr_t > > vm_offset_t > > vm_size_t > > vm_ooffset_t > > vm_paddr_t > > vm_pindex_t > > > >addr_t, vm_offset_t, and vm_size_t are defined in Cygwin, but still, > >do we really want them available generically? __BSD_VISIBLE is set > >by default... > > For RTEMS we definitely want these types, since we want to use code from > FreeBSD. So, the question is, do all Newlib users want to see these types? > Your survey suggests a no. > > What about the following: > > As the last step of <sys/types.h> add an > > #include <machine/_user_types.h> > > so that a particular Newlib target is able to provide additional user types. > > Move "winsup/cygwin/include/cygwin/types.h" to > "winsup/cygwin/include/machine/_user_types.h". Plague only the RTEMS users > with these FreeBSD types. That sounds like a plan but... wouldn't that be ideally the job of machine/types.h? Now that the file has no other uses anymore we could resurrect it for just this purpose. Given that the idea is to define user-visible types, that sounds like the right thing to do to me, rather than inventing YA filename. Yes, no? > Do we want to keep the special cases for GO32 and __MSDOS__ on i386 or may I > remove them and potentially break these targets? Personally I would like to see them go rather sooner than later, but I have no idea if we still have a consumer for them or not. Jeff? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |