Zack Weinberg, le mer. 18 avril 2018 14:40:29 -0400, a ecrit: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Samuel Thibault > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I have a concern: the types 'struct sched_param' and 'struct > >> __sched_param' are not compatible, even if their members are identical > >> (6.2.7p1 explicitly requires the tags to be the same for > >> compatibility). > > > > Ah, probably that's why bits/sched.h used to define both sched_param and > > __sched_param with the __sched_priority field, and #define > > sched_priority to __sched_priority. I can do that, it's fine. > > This is actually worse than having struct sched_param defined by > sys/types.h, because sched.h is now defining *macro* names that it's > not supposed to. It's far more likely that a program will try to > define a variable named 'sched_priority' than that it will try to > define its own 'struct sched_param'.
Sure. glibc just has been #defining sched_priority for a very long time already :) > Can I ask whether you want to keep exposing the internals of pthread_* > types to applications? If there's a plan to stop doing that - even a > "yeah but it's hard and we have so many other things to do first" > intention - then I would recommend leaving sched_param alone for now > and just XFAILing the conformance test. That's it indeed. Samuel
