From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6031B3858C3A for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:02:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6031B3858C3A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 6031B3858C3A Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710342152; cv=none; b=P1an6IVUpV7fBuutENjJdLQ+q/UE4ynUyArP3I7fpAt1a+40PZOaFr5MALjJly/lgFA2MclKKTPRXne7GsIW3/x5xONAUjwOXo6jk4TaGulPpWvZT1LVegEQkDEYCowfXQGpDJySItcM5IHnOjUS6maBYjlxxg/hc4HA6hbsyGQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710342152; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PLybBvmHZ3RQ8KKjNMragGnGfZHxb2CYV35w8jq7fME=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=a+hrjCDWHMegWCBWz8ovLnZdVSDbbE3Emy/9cnJ2fIcqFftBRB//8B8r2RZJJpBnUkoD6FgfzLGlEq8n5T0mZjRGIJfZIHdvb1uerl/CyGYFjHOCo26KV59TUt2K6obWF6x8VtTrPMhhTKW8Nn7Hw32tHFMb2PUwzyvAMeEu4vU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710342141; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TGQnP18JppLUUvo/om7IE6k0vxk9l6XG7AViPoNBLuM=; b=BVd1eDkmTwVJ2g7OC1Fy6psCqFMMH4520kTSTHR4wDzKxCLHt3ptFUUDI94I6CvwmSYXWf yHp21296mzOHtWhW0MmFVmvA3Irqe9AHUlozT8DNgZ3brNN0V0Np671v43HZI/i+Ho+KAe 4hFRFaR9eYoDusiU/P7fpUon9nulQ2M= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-631-IqhRLi5HPzaFjyb-LH9EuQ-1; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:02:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IqhRLi5HPzaFjyb-LH9EuQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C10D18008BB; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from calimero.vinschen.de (unknown [10.39.192.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08DE62166B4F; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id C6F99A80706; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:02:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:02:10 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Joel Sherrill Cc: Jon Turney , Newlib , Chris Johns Subject: Re: Include FD_SETSIZE on RTEMS to 256 Message-ID: Reply-To: newlib@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: Joel Sherrill , Jon Turney , Newlib , Chris Johns References: <9514182a-f513-4296-8178-43b5274abb7f@dronecode.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mar 13 09:35, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:21 AM Jon Turney > wrote: > > > On 28/02/2024 23:02, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > The attached patch changes FD_SETSIZE from 64 to 256 for RTEMS. > > > > > > Is it OK to apply? > > > > > > > This uses the preprocessor directive '#elifdef', > > > > It seems like support for that was added in gcc 12. > > > > Good catch. Unfortunately, I just pushed the posted patch just before your > email arrived. > > I have posted a small patch to change this to #elif defined(__rtems__). If > someone acks it, I will push it quickly to minimize who might be impacted. You sent the wrong patch apparently. However, if your patch just changes #elifdef X to #elif defined (X), then test it with a pre-12 gcc and then push it. Soon. Corinna