Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <3C067330.8000802@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:41:04 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horak Daniel CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANN][RFC] cygipc-1.11 at cygutils References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Horak Daniel wrote: >>What does postgresql do if there is no system-wide union semun? >> > > There is a check for union semun in configure and then if it does not > find a system wide union semun it defines its own as > > #ifndef HAVE_UNION_SEMUN > union semun > { > int val; > struct semid_ds *buf; > unsigned short *array; > }; > #endif Ah, then cygipc-1.11 won't work for postgresql. Cygwin (and Linux) implementations of IPC need a fourth union memeber, struct seminfo *__buf which is used when cmd == IPC_INFO, SEM_INFO. Linux also requires a fifth member void *__pad while cygipc declares that fifth member because it was modeled on the Linux code -- but cygipc never accesses __pad. This sounds like a vote for 'return to 1.10 behavior'. Any other comments? --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/