Fri Mar 13 18:16:00 GMT 2009
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Defining a unique value means that, if we do decide at some point to add
> functionality which utilizes that errno the will be no need to recompile
> the application.
If you think Cygwin might at some point learn to send certain errnos,
they should use low values, as the standard ones do. The point of using
9999 is to say "we'll never need this one," perhaps because it just
doesn't make sense for Cygwin.
I'd be surprised if there were actually errnos used by other *ixes that
Cygwin currently doesn't use, which are also not understood well enough
such that you can't predict whether Cygwin will ever need them for more
than compatibility. Obviously the future is wide open and holds endless
surprises, but isn't Cygwin mature enough by now that its wish list is
mostly populated by obvious things? Is there really a lot of stuff
coming in these days where you say, "didn't see that coming!"?
More information about the Cygwin-patches