DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=T63N1FAU4j8sSrwIvchD3KgebnlLFnXVeVXZ6PvPLTbGyYoW29LAM
	YjwWOBrMTTUpONKK5zDq9omX8IRwt1WXD+oI2h+ah9VB7BOIY/y5ONxNBoNxv/9Z
	wcwicCcfoe1C5m0wNLdCaHVyec7loIwq2SHKlHZCKAycOCmDnS1oOo=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:42:42 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: siginfo_t missing member si_band
Message-ID: <20131015194242.GA2368@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <525D55B3 DOT 3050002 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <525D55B3.3050002@cs.utoronto.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:48:19AM -0400, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>While trying to build python3 for cygwin, I kept encountering the 
>following error message:
>
>./Modules/signalmodule.c: In function ?fill_siginfo?:
>./Modules/signalmodule.c:745:60: error: ?siginfo_t? has no member named 
>?si_band?
>PyStructSequence_SET_ITEM(result, 6, PyLong_FromLong(si->si_band));
>^
>Include/tupleobject.h:62:75: note: in definition of macro 
>?PyTuple_SET_ITEM?
>#define PyTuple_SET_ITEM(op, i, v) (((PyTupleObject *)(op))->ob_item[i] 
>= v)
>^
>./Modules/signalmodule.c:745:5: note: in expansion of macro 
>?PyStructSequence_SET_ITEM?
>PyStructSequence_SET_ITEM(result, 6, PyLong_FromLong(si->si_band));
>
>As far as I can tell, siginfo_t::si_band is mandated by POSIX.1-2001, 
>and required for proper handling of SIGPOLL. The latter seems to 
>correspond to async I/O with poll(2). I'm pretty sure cygwin doesn't 
>support async I/O, but shouldn't the struct member at least exist, to 
>avoid breaking code that assumes its existence? The alternative is to 
>patch python3 locally so its os.sigwaitinfo function no longer touches 
>si_band, or to file a bug upstream so that the module's configury tests 
>for its existence before using it.
>
>Thoughts?

Sure.  I question the utility of lying in a structure about the
availability of an unimplemented feature.  If something is specifically
expecting the structure member to exist it seems like it would be
expecting it to do something.

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