key64_t? ino64_t?

Nicholas Wourms
Sun May 11 14:59:00 GMT 2003 wrote:
> 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)

That's the patch I've been using for the last 8 months, I guess I never 
bothered to change my local sources because I thought maybe Conrad would 
show up again or I might aquire enough knowledge & time to tackle it 
myself.  FWIW, it doesn't seem to have any harmful side-effects from my 
perspective and daily use of Cygwin (but then again I don't care about 
backwards compat, so I suppose that changes things).


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list