On 23/9/21 7:02 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 23/09/2021 10:44, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 23/9/21 4:29 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 23/09/2021 07:43,chr...@rtems.org wrote: >>>> From: Chris Johns<chr...@rtems.org> >>>> >>>> - This call is provided by RTEMS and that is preferred >>>> >>>> Closes #4518 >>> This removes the kqueue() support for pipe(). >> It does but it also lets the RTEMS one get linked in and do it's work. Pipe >> for >> libio descriptors and libmisc/redirect work nicely well before libbsd is >> initialised and this is important in some applications. Especially ones that >> capture the console early to implement a `dmesg` type of support. >> >> I am happy to see a file op added for pipe however I view RTEMS as having >> priority over the same call signature in libbsd if there is a clash and >> there is. >> >> I have an app that crashes because of this. I have no idea why on RTEMS 5 the >> RTEMS one is linked in and the same app and build system now results the >> libbsd >> one. Having 2 is wrong. > > Please document the removed kqueue() support for pipe() at least in a ticket. > It > could be added.
Yes I will do that and thank you for the idea. > It don't think we need it right now or that someone has to > implement it, but we should know that there is now a missing feature that > existed previously. Yes and it may be needed. I do like kqueue. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
