On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:25:59AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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.
Ah, right. I think I go through the cycle of thinking this is a good idea and then realizing it won't work every year or so. I guess I needed you to complete the cycle. >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. No objections. cgf