Sat Mar 14 09:26:00 GMT 2009
On Mar 13 17:47, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:59:49PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 13 10:50, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>Defining a unique value means that, if we do decide at some point to
> >>add functionality which utilizes that errno there will be no need to
> >>recompile the application.
> >That's quite a good argument. If you both think it's a good idea to
> >define this new errno, I'm fine with it, too.
> I was wondering if we should add a conditionalized "#include
> <cygwin/errno.h>" to newlib's errno.h. Then we could add things without
> littering the file with #ifdef CYGWIN's.
Actually I was going to propose the same idea yesterday when I wrote my
reply. But then it occured to me that, *if* we add our own errno.h, we
would have to make sure that we start with our own errnos at a value way
above EOWNERDEAD so that we don't get an errno clash when new errnos are
added to newlib. But in this case we raise the size of _sys_errlist
with empty slots for no good reason. And the worst case, newlib adds an
errno with another value than what's defined in cygwin/errno.h.
So, if we add this errno, just stick it to newlib's sys/errno.h as in
Yaakovs original patch.
If that's ok with you I'll apply Yaakov's patch on Monday.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-patches