patacongo commented on issue #3898: URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/3898#issuecomment-860053067
> Do you think it's reasonable to enforce caller pass task name as the first argument so task_xxx API has the similar argv semantic as posix_spawn(exec...) API? Or keep two set API has the different argv[0] interpretation? I wouldn't change the task_xxx APIs at all. I don't see any reason to do that and it would cause a lot of harm. There are practical reasons to avoid doing this: 1. It is a big event, but you know that, and 2. It will break the code of EVERY use of NuttX. I think that is wrong. We should not cause NuttX user's such big problems unless there is a significant technical gain. In there case, there is no technical gain. And this does not help at all with the standardization of NuttX interfaces: 3. None of the task_xxx interfaces are standard. There is no standard to comply with. 4. There is only one thing remotely like a standard. task_create() (and some of the other task_xxx functions) derived originally from VxWorks interfaces. They were more similar to the VxWorks interfaces in the past. See https://docs.windriver.com/bundle/vxworks_7_application_core_os_sr0630-enus/page/CORE/taskLib.html 5. Putting a task name in argv[0] is not the same as putting a file name in argv[0]. There may be some superficial similarities, but it does not make them close to being the same. So nothing is gained by making this awful change except for pissing off NuttX users. The change would probably cause more harm than good. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
