X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1A983394D833
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org;
	dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maxrnd.com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=mark AT maxrnd DOT com
Subject:	Re: Why is taskset still not in util-linux?
To:	moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu, cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<1348011a-261a-2a87-d361-4e51fa8dc19f AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
	<85ae12aa-6cc3-5d4c-5df2-25bf811ec6a9 AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<72fea68a-b3d7-e87c-726f-8a5a2587a992 AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<01e3d337-e5fe-f393-7634-3f1881bca315 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
	<dca24f26-9da9-591c-19c1-8020e5de3a4e AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<79d7afa5-a07b-04df-c259-b76c61390f8c AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<c075b981d41ff880e0af76c853e764c468b9c6de DOT camel AT cygwin DOT com>
	<dd8104f5-4a76-1ff3-f769-69154991aa80 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
From:	Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>
Message-ID:	<f50b2040-c29f-9983-9bce-d1c33fb4bae7@maxrnd.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:37:44 -0700
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<dd8104f5-4a76-1ff3-f769-69154991aa80@cs.umass.edu>
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-11.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
	KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
	TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	Cygwin mailing list <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 02L8dOOa012492

Eliot Moss wrote:
> On 3/20/2020 9:39 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 
>  > Cygwin doesn't support syscalls.  I'd be very wary of any code which is
>  > conditional on any #ifdef SYS_*.
> 
> Of course.  AFAICT taskset does not need the syscall, it just needs the
> library call to work.  Asking about the syscall is, I suppose, a kind of Linux
> shorthand to see if something is supported on the particular platform.  Mark's
> suggestion of providing a fake definition of that syscall definition is a
> workaround that may disturb the util-linux sources the least.

What I did here was definitely a hack.  I'm not sure it's the best solution.

I fully concur with Yaakov's warning.  There's two levels to syscalls as seen in 
programs like taskset.  On one level, configure checks whether a particular 
syscall exists on the compiling machine because different Linux kernels have 
different sets of syscalls.  On the second level, the program actually uses a 
call named syscall() to call into specific kernel routines.

On Cygwin, what to do about programs that assume they're running on Linux and so 
make use of the Linux syscall feature?  We could dummy up a sys/syscall.h but 
implementing a full syscall() interface would be a lot of work and do nothing 
but slow down programs making heavy use of it; it adds a layer of indirection.

Yaakov, do you have a general strategy for dealing with syscall usage when 
you've come across it in all the porting you've done?  Cygwin-specific patch?

..mark
--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -