This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: mq_timedsend & mq_timedreceive
Nick, Jonathan
Does it mean I may do them?!
Yesturday I found that I'd be glad to have sem_timedwait and
pthread_mutextimedlock. I don't see a problem with implementing it but
standards... Huh, actually asking around brought me that QNX guys included
this into their manual pages and LynxOS guys seems to do this too. Why we
shouldn't do this? At least, some things that are almost reqired by that
^&*@^$&*@ ISaGRAF PRO target.
Regards,
--
Dmitriy
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Nick Garnett wrote:
> Date: 13 Jan 2003 10:34:20 +0000
> From: Nick Garnett <nickg@ecoscentric.com>
> To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>
> Cc: Dmitriy Korovkin <dkorovkin@rambler.ru>, ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: mq_timedsend & mq_timedreceive
>
> Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> writes:
>
> > Dmitriy Korovkin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > In my work on porting ISaGRAF PRO target to eCos I found that
> > > message queue send and receive with timeout are required. So I've
> > > added functions mq_timedsend and mq_timedreceive defined by POSIX
> > > 1003.1d draft. So, patches to isoinfra, posix and kernel packages a
> > > attached. Your coments are highly appreciated.
> >
> > It seems a bit odd to me for POSIX 1003.1d to do this because there's
> > plenty of ways to wake up a blocked function using signals in
> > POSIX. I'm also generally loath to include functions only in a draft,
> > although there's probably no harm as long as people are prepared to
> > accept that the draft may change!
>
> Well, I don't believe it is a draft anymore, these are in IEEE 1003.1-2001.
> Along with lots of other stuff we must find the time to do.
>
>