setregid() and setreuid() implementation proposal

Corinna Vinschen
Wed Jan 22 10:29:00 GMT 2003

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:40:07PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:27:01PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >Wouldn't this (post 1.3.19) instead be the right time to kick in the 
> >uid32 code? Corinna had indicated in the fall that it was "just" (my
> >words) a matter of introducing a few macros to split that change from 
> >the offset64 stuff?

Hmm, I was trying to avoid that but I'm not getting to change newlib
for the necessary fpos_t changes.  And, honestly, I hate digging in

But it's not *that* simple:

- is still using __aclent16_t instead of __aclent32_t.

- Create a new define, say __CYGWIN_USE_32BIT_IDS__

- Set this define in some Cygwin header (cygwin/types.h?) or
  in gcc's specs file.

- Change Cygwin's Makefile so that new applications are linked
  against the new functions (same way as for regcomp/posix_regcomp
  et al)

And don't forget that all applications still use 16 bit ids as long
as they aren't rebuild!

> Sure.  I plan on introducing the device file and fifo support too.
> Maybe it's a good time to kick the DLL to 1.4.0 since this will be

> a DLL with major new features.  Assuming all goes well, there will be
> mount table changes coming soon, too.

Would that imply a chance to correct a mistake in the API?  Once I
introduced a function lacl() which is completely useless and has
never been defined in Solaris nor in POSIX.  May I just trash it then?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list