From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 23 12:57:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903D837B9E0 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:57:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115201>; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:58:04 +1100 Content-return: prohibited From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Union semun defined in /usr/include/sys/sem.h? In-reply-to: ; from blk@skynet.be on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:46:35PM +1100 To: Brad Knowles Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <00Feb24.075804est.115201@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:58:03 +1100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2000-Feb-23 23:46:35 +1100, Brad Knowles wrote: > However, this has brought up an interesting question. It is my >understanding that X/Open requires that this union be defined within >the client source code Both Solaris and the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 explicitly state this. > Is this changed in -CURRENT? Not at present. > If not, are there any plans to >change it in -CURRENT? Or has the X/Open standard changed, and >FreeBSD is following the new standard in this area? I can't comment on this. There doesn't seem to be a high level of interest in the SysV semaphore handling. > I'm also curious to know why there is a difference in how this >object is defined under Linux and FreeBSD. There are two differences: - The type of "array": SUSv2 and Linux specify "unsigned short int *", Solaris uses "ushort *" and FreeBSD uses "u_short *". The underlying type should be the same. (Though it does bring up another `bug' in our implementation - SUSv2 states should be idempotent, but we require to be explicitly included first). - Linux includes an "__buf" field. This field (and the associated IPC_INFO) don't appear in either SUSv2 or Solaris - I suspect it is a Linux extension to make ipcs(1) cleaner. >However, I'm also interested as to who is "right" on this issue, and >more importantly, why they are "right". It looks very much like FreeBSD is in the wrong here. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message