Re: sched.h question

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

On 03/28/2010 10:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 27 16:31, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>    
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that when you build RTEMS + newlib, there
> > are two sched.h files and a sys/sched.h
> >
> > + newlib sched.h - very minimal, includes<sys/sched.h>
> > + newlib sys/sched.h - very minimal, defines struct sched_param
> > + RTEMS sched.h - prototypes sched_XXX methods.
> >
> > Would it be OK to submit a patch to add the prototype of
> > the following to newlib/libc/include/sched.h:
> >
> > + sched_setparam
> > + sched_getparam
> > + sched_setscheduler
> > + sched_getscheduler
> > + sched_get_priority_min
> >      
>    + sched_get_priority_max
>
>    
> > + sched_rr_get_interval
> > + sched_yield
> >
> > Asking since modifying files in libc/include impacts
> > everything.
> >      
> IMHO, that's fine.
>
> Can we please create sched.h and sys/sched.h which can be shared with
> Cygwin as well?  Right now Cygwin uses its own sched.h, but the only
> actual difference are the values of the three defines SCHED_OTHER (3),
> SCHED_FIFO (1), and SCHED_RR (2).  We have to stick to these values for
> backward compatibility, but it's no precedent to have different defines
> in a file for different platforms, so that should be ok.
>
>
>    
That's great with me!! I would really prefer that RTEMS and
Cygwin share as many .h files as is reasonable. It increases
the probability that we both are compatible and doing the
right thing.  It is also less target specific code for each of
us to maintain. When I tell uses about the C library we use, I
always say it is the one used by Cygwin.  :)

I have no preference on the values of SCHED_XXX.  I will
submit my patch Monday since I think the machine in
the RTEMS Build Farm I was working on crashed. :(

Is there anything else that should be in this .h file? I was
wanting to see it compile and remove the sched.h in
RTEMS before reviewing open group more closely.

--joel
> Corinna
>
>