Re: the remaining chunk of the RTEMS patch

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 12 December 2000 14:02, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > AFAICT, it removes things like '_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF' and
> > > '_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN'.  It also seems to renumber other SC_
> > > constants from their previous usage, which breaks backwards
> > > compatibility.
> >
> > Where were these?  I thought I did not remove any. :(
> 
> As usual: libc/include/sys/unistd.h
> 
> > Also AFAIK aren't these beyond POSIX?
> 
> So they have to be removed?

No.  That was just a comment becuase if they are beyond POSIX,
then they should be bracketed by a target specific macro.

> > As I have stated other times, RTEMS does not particularly care about
> > the numeric values.  Feel free to change them to whatever Cygwin
> > wants.
> 
> I'm somewhat annoyed by this statement. Why didn't you care
> for the values when creating the patch? I'm not quite convinced
> that other people have to repair the damage but you.

I do care.  You are reading this the wrong direction.  On many
systems, the values assigned to those macros are critical.  You
can't change what Solaris expects for example.  But for RTEMS
itselt, we don't care.  If picking a particular value provides
compatability with something, please use that value.  It will
NOT break RTEMS.
 
> > Please feel free to change the value of constants.  RTEMS does not
> > depend
> > on these in any fashion. :)
> 
> Then, why did you change the existing values?

The set was incomplete.  I renumbered them to reflect the order
they are presented in the POSIX 1003.1b standard and fill in gaps.

> Corinna
> 
> --
> Corinna Vinschen
> Cygwin Developer
> Red Hat, Inc.
> mailto:vinschen@redhat.com

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985