discussion related to ipc.h

[Eshan Dhawan]

> On 26-Mar-2020, at 12:42 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> No need to put discussion in the subject. As Gedare pointed out, all email threads are discussions by definition. ;)
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawan51 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> I went through the implementation of sys/ipc.h in various platforms.
>> From FreeBSD, it is difficult to implement file as warned by Joel.
>> but then I went through musl implementation 
>> it is easy to comprehend 
>> But it has a kind of architecture-specific implementation.
>> 
>> FreeBSD 
>> > ipc.h : https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/sys/ipc.h
>> > ftok.c: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/gen/ftok.c
>> musl 
>> > https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/ipc 
>> https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/sys/ipc.h
>> and a ipc.h file , ipcstat.h in arch/MACHINE/bits 
>> Generic 
>> https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/arch/generic/bits/ipc.h
>> https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/arch/generic/bits/ipcstat.h 
>> 
>> ipcstat.h has a different value for every arch. 
> 
> On closer reading, ftok() support without the other IPC mechanisms makes
> no sense.  I would push this one way way down the list -- like stay as far
> away from ipc.h as you can this summer. :)
> 
Ok,got that ;) 
> --joel
>> 
>> thanks 
>> eshan
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200326/b96fd470/attachment.html>