This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] --std=c89 error in sys/signal.h
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:37:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] --std=c89 error in sys/signal.h
- References: <4AC2732D.5090304@users.sourceforge.net> <20090929223320.GA8901@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4AC2A7B5.3070105@users.sourceforge.net> <4AC2B02E.7010805@users.sourceforge.net> <4AC94F6F.60308@users.sourceforge.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
On Oct 4 20:44, Yaakov S wrote:
> On 29/09/2009 20:11, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> On 29/09/2009 19:35, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> Anyway, to answer the question, AFAICS in glibc, <signal.h> #include
>>> <bits/types.h> unconditionally[1]. (<sys/signal.h> is just one line:
>>> #include <signal.h> [2])
>>>
>>> So should I take the first route, patching newlib instead?
Newlib, methinks.
>> int _EXFUN(kill, (int, int));
>> int _EXFUN(killpg, (pid_t, int));
>>
>> Is that supposed to mean that we don't want to use pid_t here at all,
>> and the intended solution would be to change killpg to (int, int), as
>> ugly as that is, leaving only <cygwin/signal.h> needing the #include
>> <sys/types.h>?
>
> Ping?
I think the newlib kill declaration should be changed to pid_t, since
that's simply correct per POSIX.
I can;t believe the RTEMS people have a problem with that.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat