Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2003/01/22/10:45:42
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:29:19AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:40:07PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:27:01PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >Wouldn't this (post 1.3.19) instead be the right time to kick in the
>> >uid32 code? Corinna had indicated in the fall that it was "just" (my
>> >words) a matter of introducing a few macros to split that change from
>> >the offset64 stuff?
>
>Hmm, I was trying to avoid that but I'm not getting to change newlib
>for the necessary fpos_t changes. And, honestly, I hate digging in
>newlib.
I forget what the problem is here. Couldn't we just define fpos_t to
be 64 bits?
>But it's not *that* simple:
>
>- sec_acl.cc is still using __aclent16_t instead of __aclent32_t.
>
>- Create a new define, say __CYGWIN_USE_32BIT_IDS__
>
>- Set this define in some Cygwin header (cygwin/types.h?) or
> in gcc's specs file.
>
>- Change Cygwin's Makefile so that new applications are linked
> against the new functions (same way as for regcomp/posix_regcomp
> et al)
>
>And don't forget that all applications still use 16 bit ids as long
>as they aren't rebuild!
Right. So, we go with the define in header, export in cygwin.din
method for dealing with that.
>> Sure. I plan on introducing the device file and fifo support too.
>> Maybe it's a good time to kick the DLL to 1.4.0 since this will be
> ^^^^^
> 1.5.0
Yes, as I was drifting off to sleep last night, I realized that I'd
awake to just this correction from you. :-)
>> a DLL with major new features. Assuming all goes well, there will be
>> mount table changes coming soon, too.
>
>Would that imply a chance to correct a mistake in the API? Once I
>introduced a function lacl() which is completely useless and has
>never been defined in Solaris nor in POSIX. May I just trash it then?
As long as no one is actually using lacl, I don't see any reason not
to trash it. Otherwise, keeping an obsolete function around which does
nothing doesn't seem to be too much of a burden.
Maybe the best plan would be to keep the 1.3.* branch around and start
making drastic changes to 1.5.*. The first checkin could be device
handling, since that is nearly ready. Then we could add 32/64 bit
support. Eventually, around 1.5.8 or so, we could make 1.5 the latest
release and trask 1.3.*
cgf
- Raw text -