[PATCH] Fix _SC_xxx and _POSIX_xxx definitions

Corinna Vinschen vinschen@redhat.com
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
> non-POSIX:
>   /* 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?


Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat

More information about the Newlib mailing list