key64_t? ino64_t?

Charles Wilson
Sun May 11 03:50:00 GMT 2003

cgf wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 07:40:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>This is important to decide and to code ASAP, to get out 1.5.0 finally.
>>Do we want a 64 bit key_t in Cygwin?  Yes?  No?  Who will do the changes?
> I'd say yes.  The changes should be trivial compared to ino_t.

Actaully, I don't think anything in winsup (other than cygserver itself)
uses key_t -- and cygserver was designed to use 64bit key_t from the
beginning.  So as long as the redefinition of key_t in newlib is guarded
by #if __CYGWIN__ (so that ./newlib/libc/sys/linux/ stuff that DOES use
key_t is protected from this change), I think you're home free.

FWIW, the patch that Robert originally said ought to be applied to newlib
before playing with cygdaemon is here (you want the key_t patch,
obviously, and NOT the exportipc.patch)

Even though we don't want to export the cygserver stuff, we *might* want
to export *just* ftok.  Currently, cygipc provides it's own
implementation (which I hope will remain sync'ed with the cygserver
version after key_t goes to 64bits, IF it goes to 64bits).  That
synchronization is obviously much easier if there's only one copy, and
cygipc-the-64bit-generation uses the one from cygwin1.dll... See patch,

BTW, Robert wrote in this message (concerning key_t)
"hashs collide. key_t's can not collide under any circumstance, and must
be deterministic (i.e. not dependent on currently issued keys)."


This should ONLY be applied if key_t goes to 64bits.

diff -u -r1.87 cygwin.din
--- cygwin.din  9 May 2003 22:11:25 -0000       1.87
+++ cygwin.din  11 May 2003 03:46:14 -0000
@@ -508,6 +508,8 @@
 _ftello64 = ftello64
 _ftime = ftime
+_ftok = ftok
 _ftruncate = ftruncate
 _ftruncate64 = ftruncate64
  Charles Wilson
  cygwin at removespam cwilson dot fastmail dot fm

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list