[PATCH] Fix _SC_xxx and _POSIX_xxx definitions
Wed Feb 7 12:08:00 GMT 2007
On Feb 7 10:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 7 07:36, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > As long as all non-POSIX (e.g. Cygwin-specific) _SC_xxx definitions are
> > properly guarded, adding POSIX-compliant _SC_xxx definitions is fine
> > with us - As far as can tell Corinna's patch seem OK for us.
> Uh, there's one problem here. There are four definitions which are
> /* CYGWIN-specific values .. do not touch */
> #define _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF 9
> #define _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN 10
> #define _SC_PHYS_PAGES 11
> #define _SC_AVPHYS_PAGES 12
> /* end of CYGWIN-specific values */
> These have been added back in 2000, and they were never guarded with
> an `#ifdef __CYGWIN__'. All four values are supported by Linux, FWIW.
> When I patched sys/unistd.h yesterday, I contemplated the idea to
> guard them. However, since they were *never guarded, I don't know
> if they aren't actually supported by RTEMS. That's why I left them
> unguarded. Is that ok with you?
btw., if you also use them, I would remove the above comments. They
wouldn't make sense, right?
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
More information about the Newlib