Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 17:41:03 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: errno.h - EILSEQ
Message-ID: <20020406224103.GC24727@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <a8dl5l$59b$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <m3y9g5mfd7 DOT fsf AT flognat DOT myip DOT org> <3CABD5A3 DOT A14F32EC AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <20020404105544 DOT B1475 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3CAE7320 DOT A6B997B8 AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <20020406062745 DOT GE12535 AT redhat DOT com> <3CAF772A DOT A850C9AE AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CAF772A.A850C9AE@worldnet.att.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:31:06PM -0600, Dave Trollope wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:01:36PM -0600, Dave Trollope wrote:
>>>Since it exists on Linux and Solaris, I figured that this was new to
>>>Cygwin and its applications.  The question is, for what was it
>>>introduced to both Linux and Solaris, and shouldn't it be introduced to
>>>Cygwin?
>>
>>That's rarely the question.
>>
>>The question is "Who's going to do the work to get it into Cygwin?"
>
>That was my next question if the answer to the first was yes.
>
>I would willingly create a patch myself, but I don't currently
>understand what this error code is for, I was hoping someone would
>know.
>
>>The way to get something into Cygwin is to send a patch.
>>
>>Hopefully, you'd implement both the errno and the code for detecting
>>it, whereever it exists.  Otherwise, as Corinna indicates, there is no
>>reason for the errno.  If some code is expecting it, without making it
>>conditional, you could easily make a case that THAT code is in error
>>since it's frightfully simple to check for this type of thing.
>
>I agree, but since I don't know what it means it would be unwise to
>just throw it in.

Most people seem to have this backwards.  Rather then spend an
inordinate amount of time asking for permission or insight in a mailing
list, you could, instead, create a patch and ask for it to be included.

In the process of creating a patch, you would end up actually
understanding what is going on, so you'd educate yourself in the
process.

There's certainly no harm in asking for insight from a mailing list but
after a few days of no real response, it's usually a safe bet that you
can probably find more understanding by searching the net via google
and/or looking at the code.

cgf

--
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/