Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On 12/7/06, Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The quoted sentence is not shaded as an XSI extension, thus it is part of POSIX-1:2001. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The change I pointed at was accepted to the interpretations track which means that if we would create a Technical Co

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that >> > ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct? >> >>

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that > > ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct? > >

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that > ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct? "Their values shall be unique except as noted below." (A

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Ok, so Linux will never be fully posix compliant. ? Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct? If you are reading Unix 98 you might be able to

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm quite aware of that, but I still think Sun has more resources to get their particular viewpoint through the committee -- it's just a matter of resources at hand. I myself had to largely drop out due to other pressures, for example. But

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Ulrich Drepper wrote: On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's largely already the case, mostly because there is unfortunately still a fair bit of rubber-stamping Solaris going on. Don't say that, Peter. I'm working on the committee now for many years and got most changes

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's largely already the case, mostly because there is unfortunately still a fair bit of rubber-stamping Solaris going on. Don't say that, Peter. I'm working on the committee now for many years and got most changes I (and those telling me

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Samuel Thibault wrote: H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:35:49 -0800, a écrit : Samuel Thibault wrote: The two can't be done at the same time. In fact, the two probably can't be done without a period of quite a few *years* between them. Not a reason for not doing it ;) No, but breakage is

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:35:49 -0800, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > >>The two can't be done at the same time. In fact, the two probably can't > >>be done without a period of quite a few *years* between them. > > > >Not a reason for not doing it ;) > > No, but breakage is. Th

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Samuel Thibault wrote: H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:16:39 -0800, a écrit : Arjan van de Ven wrote: Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it on their part, see http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 Hi, Ulrich asked you to go to us once

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:26:44 -0800, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > >H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:16:39 -0800, a écrit : > >>Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it > on their part, see > http://sour

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Samuel Thibault wrote: The two can't be done at the same time. In fact, the two probably can't be done without a period of quite a few *years* between them. Not a reason for not doing it ;) No, but breakage is. There has to be a major benefit to justify the cost, and you, at least, have no

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:16:39 -0800, a écrit : > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it > >>on their part, see > >>http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 > > > >Hi, > > > >Ulrich asked you to go to us once

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Arjan van de Ven wrote: Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it on their part, see http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 Hi, Ulrich asked you to go to us once your time travel machine was finished.. is it finished yet ? ;=) this is part of t

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Samuel Thibault wrote: this is part of the ABI, so we can't change this in 2006... Ok, so Linux will never be fully posix compliant. That's largely already the case, mostly because there is unfortunately still a fair bit of rubber-stamping Solaris going on. -hpa - To unsubscribe

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

Hi, Arjan van de Ven, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 15:25:14 +0100, a écrit : > > > Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it > > on their part, see > > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 > > Ulrich asked you to go to us once your time travel machine was

Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

> Is there any way to fix this? Glibc people don't seem to want to fix it > on their part, see > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 Hi, Ulrich asked you to go to us once your time travel machine was finished.. is it finished yet ? ;=) this is part of the ABI, so we can't

Linux should define ENOTSUP

Hi, ENOTSUP is not used at all by linux (though it is defined for parisc), while as susv3 specifies, ENOTSUP shall be different than EOPNOTSUPP. Is there a reason for doing so? (except history) Currently, code like switch(errno) { ENOTSUP: foo(); break;