On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:37:26PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >[adding cygwin] > >On 04/29/2013 04:23 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> --- > >> + >> + tests: don't assume getdtablesize () <= 10000000 >> + * modules/cloexec-tests: >> + * modules/dup2-tests: >> + * modules/dup3-tests: >> + * modules/nonblocking-tests: >> + * modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose-tests: >> + * modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_adddup2-tests: >> + * modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen-tests: >> + * modules/unistd-safer-tests: >> + Depend on the getdtablesize module. >> + * tests/test-cloexec.c: >> + * tests/test-dup-safer.c: >> + * tests/test-dup2.c: >> + * tests/test-dup3.c: >> + * tests/test-fcntl.c: >> + * tests/test-nonblocking.c: >> + * tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose.c: >> + * tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_adddup2.c: >> + * tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen.c: >> + Don't assume getdtablesize () <= 10000000. > >This patch causes failures on at least test-fcntl and test-dup2 on >cygwin (both 32-bit and 64-bit); there, getdtablesize() currently >returns the current runtime value, but this value starts at 256, and >automatically expands as needed at runtime up to 3200. I think cygwin >should be patched to make getdtablesize() return a constant 3200 (rather >than the current runtime value);
Why? What does "3200" have to do with anything? There is not supposed to be a hard-coded upper limit. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
