On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 10:36:12PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > is it posixly correct to define _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO although we don't
> > support msync?
>
> No, I don't think it is (from looking at 1003.1-1996). That is, if
> _POSIX_MAPPED_FILES and _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO are both defined, msync is
> supposed to work. However, _POSIX_MAPPED_FILES means you have mmap et al;
> so it's useful to define that since we do. _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO means
> fsync and fdatasync work, so it's useful to define that since they do.
> If we want to pedanticly comply, probably _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO is the one
> that should go.
So we probably have to give in. The apt author (Jason Gunthorpe) is not
happy about a special configure check for that on the Hurd (quote: "I really
hate adding more configure tests"), and the code is correct in any way.[1]
Do we do report the correct things with sysconf (resp fsync et al)?
Mark, do you agree? Can you make the change to glibc if you do?
Thanks,
Marcus
[1] See http://bugs.debian.org/71503
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
