From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA4FB3858D39 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:35:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DA4FB3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue107 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MVuXT-1noUhi3fFt-00Rqdq for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 21:35:23 +0100 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 202A0A80885; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:35:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:35:23 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Cygwin sysconf.cc Message-ID: Reply-To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com References: <20220225163959.48753-1-Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca> <20220225163959.48753-3-Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca> <2a8615a6-1214-ed7a-71f1-d191bcf2f3fe@SystematicSw.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:WGxZYOZDoV3+bdttsm/yjNhFy+WA6VpypC75FHNEfEo93U92+lH frvFZ+PEWQ08m9n/duwksjI7bnWS6MF1lmueqgft/OLeMbawDZqBEYhpco1eOK579hYh+A/ BQEEy4SSsdUmgu+BaO23f0AvVOOQ+R6c9WkfuJf+GrLLcem2YTtynih/pIIvHUTLAWg75xL Wt2VmheRTYi1TycZ6JbqA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Gm63D4kTK0E=:T8mprWxUzGRi/KMhmw1yu7 as1UAIIrnVkxRO4KJ6Nsyx0XX88bXi/ZEq32v2GQVLydnvCfncGSTzrGDbIZkMsUC2QQa2HGU KBBem4J772hayUYzL9E4QaGhvX9hHQGke8pvQZyIboZupGnL2eRESbZEgubdBzkiskMjS6z4I KMTsGMOccowVpTGkV23uNrGFJ2/ZAzkXUvmt+CilSQxlq9lZWhoVThtvnDV6lSPig4Xh/Kgbg 3oW+kK+VU0gFZWjoVPcu8bQOC6h184H22PySjDQtKcxl1HaHLxrdk39NIUQVHfHyvRzXAKizi VlzGn4RKILsQiZSpJXESZ/cLB9MTBrFksMh1EaGlly6xEdUioXwpnxtJ+8V1uDWmJbsCiW3Lj N0tQ9HDihONFHA+64cdrmY0bMPAyutc/RI0mPETJl8s+gaGFMaRVxIOn6FDzdtxdrSkeaZYKG rXT3mw8spWBRVP4jGb0l3N1ZH7Eey9MIzwtkLeyNke9FbErrm72AJG8rZwtZerdFn7ADJ9ecx P8oSVjGwbZ/Lm/azetwKllqk0t2ZAdP7rr+ZAX5dRKy4p0XZlpKAU3ncSr2Gxd4mL6KQEIyqE xWTQMLwwDllwJY7hcttwxwGsTLMxEjmoAKGhwIu/jcBPguqjJNx97jdkfkVEOqCij9dI4SGhe a3Rse+LLFg9fIgY9iISXAjNV9N2nuZ8pn3KJdUEZTmbACYpv9g4JxKnFdMeXVH7bnnfNNwVyv ppU5g0C4jjlwuz7O X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN, KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_FAIL, SPF_HELO_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin core component patch submission and discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 20:35:27 -0000 On Mar 2 12:45, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2022-03-02 01:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > > > On Mar 1 13:20, Brian Inglis wrote: > > > Interested in a patch for sysconf.cc to return: > > > > > > _SC_TZNAME_MAX => TZNAME_MAX and > > > _SC_MONOTONIC_CLOCK => _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK? > > > > not sure I understand the question. Both are already implemented. > > > > $ getconf -a | egrep '(TZNAME_MAX|MONOTONIC_CLOCK)' > > _POSIX_TZNAME_MAX 6 > > TZNAME_MAX undefined > > _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK 200809 > > Sorry, must have been looking at very *OLD* version online, as > _SC_CLOCK_SELECTION and _SC_MONOTONIC_CLOCK were not defined. > > Why did you not define _SC_TZNAME_MAX => _POSIX_TZNAME_MAX when you tweaked > it? Because it's wrong. _POSIX_TZNAME_MAX is just a minimum value required by POSIX, not the correct value to return for TZNAME_MAX. > My rereading of the man and POSIX pages leads me to believe that for all > known values of _SC_... the entries now showing {nsup, {c:0}} should be > {cons, {c:-1L}} supported but undefined, and only out of range values for > the parameter should be treated as {nsup, {c:-1L}}? These are really not undefined, but not supported on Cygwin. That's why they return with EINVAL. I see what you mean, though, let me think about it. while looking into this I see at least one obvious bug. While adding POSIX per-process timers in 2019 I added a valid DELAYTIMER_MAX value, but I neglected to add this to sysconf. I'm going to fix this. Corinna