On Mar 13 17:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:59:49PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Mar 13 10:50, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>Defining a unique value means that, if we do decide at some point to > >>add functionality which utilizes that errno there will be no need to > >>recompile the application. > > > >That's quite a good argument. If you both think it's a good idea to > >define this new errno, I'm fine with it, too. > > I was wondering if we should add a conditionalized "#include > <cygwin/errno.h>" to newlib's errno.h. Then we could add things without > littering the file with #ifdef CYGWIN's.
Actually I was going to propose the same idea yesterday when I wrote my reply. But then it occured to me that, *if* we add our own errno.h, we would have to make sure that we start with our own errnos at a value way above EOWNERDEAD so that we don't get an errno clash when new errnos are added to newlib. But in this case we raise the size of _sys_errlist with empty slots for no good reason. And the worst case, newlib adds an errno with another value than what's defined in cygwin/errno.h. So, if we add this errno, just stick it to newlib's sys/errno.h as in Yaakovs original patch. If that's ok with you I'll apply Yaakov's patch on Monday. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat