RTEMS patch sweep 3

[Jeff Johnston]

On 17/12/09 11:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/17/2009 05:34 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>> On 16/12/09 10:42 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2009 07:45 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/09 12:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2009 06:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... and another one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch aims at making some parts of newlib more posix compliant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One part is #ifdef'ed __rtems__, because it relies on (POSIX) types
>>>>>> which (AFAICT) newlib currently are only supplies for RTEMS
>>>>>> (blksize_t,
>>>>>> blkcnt_t) and because we haven't tested it in other configurations
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> in RTEMS configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralf
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, fingers faster than brains - The attachment containing the patch
>>>>> was missing ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralf
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the added #endif be after the long st_spare4[]? Otherwise,
>>>> you
>>>> are changing the struct for the #if before it which normally wouldn't
>>>> have included this field.
>>>
>>> I am not sure. It would depend upon which purpose st_spare4 was intended
>>> to be used for, IMO.
>>>
>>> Probably it was only "having 2 longs in reserve" to void breaking
>>> backward compatibility, in case should one want to extend "struct stat".
>>>
>>>
>>> As we consider newlib-version upgrades to be "not ABI/API-preserving"
>>> and utilize newlib-version upgrades to deliberately break API/ABIs, this
>>> point is not of much importance to us.
>>>
>>> The only effect keeping st_spare4 should have on RTEMS would be "wasting
>>> 2 longs" on "struct stat" and keeping this field available should newlib
>>> start using it internally.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't have a problem with moving the #endif, such that
>>> st_spare4 stays also preserved on RTEMS.
>>>
>>> Below is an updated patch, now with st_spare4 kept for RTEMS.
>>>
>>> Ralf
>>
>> Actually, I am referring to the fact that the
>>
>> #if defined(__svr4__) && !defined(__PPC__) && !defined(__sun__)
>>
>> did not previously get the spare fields prior to your change. Now they
>> do. I believe that both #endifs belong after the spare fields.
> Ah, now I see! Yes, this wasn't intended. I had wanted to preserve the
> previous state for the non-rtems targets.
>
> Can you change this or shall I submit another patch?
>
> Ralf
>

I'll fix it.  Just wanted to make sure what was intended.

-- Jeff J.