From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.13]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863563858D39 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:04:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 863563858D39 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 (mreue106 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MMnnm-1nfx4O1AsG-00ImTp for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 22:04:32 +0100 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5A33DA80571; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:04:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:04:31 +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:Vx5+lVuSCJcOp4nr6Kw6WHUzv9hPdSSBBP/kI8bLE6suXkrDm8w GH8cBtQSYaSsIuuE4SBY4TMSXgWt9QqeJC7Txa8pW4DQm+Eg+bJMi2cMnk/YmkaN3HIvkCn 3fa8VsE/3wK1dmojesbh4MCcFVzrN0/uv+1jYaMwdK91/OAUv5HGrECFjK24az6BuNarSJr my2KPFKsh3OfziTSNDfyA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:UwAacAsJ3BA=:9HILcJbApD4lwuK9GNJ23S 6TR+Vd70/9MGc8qEGOwpM3i4KEjuAns3R2b6zNLfZJOVh+L+rBIKtnjW6CMv28tZGP7eAwC0T nMK/D5+7HaABwJQAt7s14LikEdkUSgNz0ULjt86xNmfD/cfI5rNKtluEddwHcOxwG7z4+jHHH EUbOZCP2+vwp/+TAQ7dbp4lSi78Za7/giBvBLtF0j0Pkkd1ZA25XANu6Gpn0TwXubv45S0azK 4b4lJsyyLjBitwSRAhHOv4k63IuJVHT2HZ6ClhBVmi3kudCV1XrqrUxxRM3uke+8FWNnFuQZc /cq6RutFkrApr4u80owmOQuiKvjP1yYtBVK2rhPcezNBljfXPJsOYxg6Gyinz+BPIy8wa2SkV 15ofcF8fT1/B21Dsimh9k/63PFVnkLBpsAGkL5Oi7lID0Y9kxERwK68910lrvyuqx8rpgi/0K FouU4RmyHGHLuDlGm5ThuuKWxGWwcFbCiXFNTWHIOeZ+SxUG+8CiVUoiP5prhg8uTHbf/grez ayGkQvGfx3xAVS8pwPxej5577cKIkK+tKT7pVFLh74lddpt7GoR+kDW2SFoMxZpyznuGm+q4L 3D8d9goiwMJQMIQeyggJq89JjuAJSd+98ogCj14znWbp8VOon9pRT3uixXMvBIW9NdipNsNMR G9vdGVA63FJnafeAHJPqUSMfRGJGdE5b+x+CWf1RfMK2fVGFbREvNtpjcpjlSvlKVcngmOCLf /G1p9IALm5lAbD1B X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN, KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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 21:04:35 -0000 On Mar 2 21:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > 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. Yep, I guess you're right. I compared this with what Linux returns for the unsupported tracing options. See commits cf00bba99a61 and fcec4830abf0. Thanks, Corinna