This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix _SC_xxx and _POSIX_xxx definitions
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.
Ralf