On 09/02/2017 04:08 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> Per POSIX, is in ths [PS] (Process Scheduling) option. You can
> identify whether [PS] is implemented at compile time, by the value of
> _POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING defined in .
I've found feature test macros to be a minefield for _years_, back to
Per POSIX, is in ths [PS] (Process Scheduling) option. You can
identify whether [PS] is implemented at compile time, by the value of
_POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING defined in . This can be one of
* Undefined or -1, functionality never supported
* 0, functionally *maybe* supported (you can enquire
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/30/2017 10:25 AM, enh wrote:
>> no: the point of the C library is to hide the mapping from
>> functionality to system call. if you ever do port to BSD/macOS you'll
>> need to cope with their syscall differences if you
On 08/30/2017 10:25 AM, enh wrote:
> no: the point of the C library is to hide the mapping from
> functionality to system call. if you ever do port to BSD/macOS you'll
> need to cope with their syscall differences if you don't let the C
> library do it, and you're likely to hit places on Android
On 08/30/2017 04:39 AM, Andre Renaud wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Can you not call "pthread_setschedparam" using on pthread_self instead
> of calling sched_setscheduler?
The same commit broke a half-dozen related system calls, so I'd still
need to wrap sched_get_priority_max() and similar myself. (Not just
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 10:32 AM, enh wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, enh wrote:
>>> can't you just infer musl from the relatively small
>>
>> ...number of c libraries out there...
>
> It would work, but
Hi Rob,
Can you not call "pthread_setschedparam" using on pthread_self instead of
calling sched_setscheduler?
Regards,
Andre
___
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
On 08/29/2017 10:32 AM, enh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, enh wrote:
>> can't you just infer musl from the relatively small
>
> ...number of c libraries out there...
It would work, but I'm uncomfortable with it.
People keep threatening to port toybox to to BSD and
can't you just infer musl from the relatively small ?
#if defined(__linux__) && (!defined(__BIONIC__) && !defined(__GLIBC__)
&& whatever ulibc is if you haven't given up on that yet)
#define __MUSL__
#endif
?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> The point of