Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2003/01/22/05:29:23
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.
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!
> 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
> 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?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -