On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:07:03AM +0000, Alin Serdean wrote:
> > > - fprintf(filep_pidfile, "%d\n", _getpid());
> > > + fprintf(filep_pidfile, "%d\n", getpid());
> >
> > This seems reasonable to me, except that usual practice would be more like
> > this:
> > fprintf(filep_pidfile, "%ld\n", (long int) getpid()); because pid_t
> > might be
> > short or int or long.
> [Alin Serdean] Thanks for the review Ben, I totally missed that.
> Although being MSFT specific if we replace getpid with GetCurrentProcessId
> (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683180(v=vs.85).aspx)
> and from includes:
> typedef unsigned long DWORD;
> I'm wondering if we should switch it to `%lu` and `(unsigned long)`.
> What do you think?
Hmm.
POSIX says that pid_t must be a signed integer type. An unsigned
integer type for pid_t breaks things; for example, the POSIX wait()
function has a pid_t return type and returns -1 to indicate an error.
So it's somewhat distressing to have getpid() return an unsigned long,
since that breaks real programs' fairly justified assumptions that
getpid() returns a signed integer type.
What if, instead of "#define getpid() _getpid()", we used an inline
function, e.g.
static inline pid_t getpid(void)
{
return GetCurrentProcessId();
}
That would be cleaner from a POSIX point of view.
(On the other hand, if GetCurrentProcessId() might return a DWORD so big
that it becomes a negative pid_t, we need to have a bigger discussion.)
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
