* Cygwin sysconf.cc [not found] ` <d71a5b05-531f-8028-7b06-6ee466053f5f@SystematicSw.ab.ca> @ 2022-03-01 20:20 ` Brian Inglis 2022-03-02 8:25 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2022-03-01 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cygwin Patches Interested in a patch for sysconf.cc to return: _SC_TZNAME_MAX => TZNAME_MAX and _SC_MONOTONIC_CLOCK => _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK? -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. [Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin sysconf.cc 2022-03-01 20:20 ` Cygwin sysconf.cc Brian Inglis @ 2022-03-02 8:25 ` Corinna Vinschen 2022-03-02 19:45 ` Brian Inglis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-03-02 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-patches 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 Corinna ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin sysconf.cc 2022-03-02 8:25 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-03-02 19:45 ` Brian Inglis 2022-03-02 20:35 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2022-03-02 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-patches 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? 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}}? -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. [Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin sysconf.cc 2022-03-02 19:45 ` Brian Inglis @ 2022-03-02 20:35 ` Corinna Vinschen 2022-03-02 21:04 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-03-02 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-patches 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin sysconf.cc 2022-03-02 20:35 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-03-02 21:04 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-03-02 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-patches 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-02 21:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20220225163959.48753-1-Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca> [not found] ` <20220225163959.48753-3-Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca> [not found] ` <Yhy6OKd/2o8VqIUH@calimero.vinschen.de> [not found] ` <d71a5b05-531f-8028-7b06-6ee466053f5f@SystematicSw.ab.ca> 2022-03-01 20:20 ` Cygwin sysconf.cc Brian Inglis 2022-03-02 8:25 ` Corinna Vinschen 2022-03-02 19:45 ` Brian Inglis 2022-03-02 20:35 ` Corinna Vinschen 2022-03-02 21:04 ` Corinna Vinschen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).