Re: [libvirt] PATCH: Latest MinGW patches

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:56:44AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:24:14AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Instead of adding the #if/else blocks above, > >> how about adding these in some header file? > >> > >> #ifndef HAVE_GETGID > >> static inline gid_t getgid (void) { return 0; } > >> #endif > >> > >> #ifndef HAVE_GETUID > >> static inline uid_t getuid (void) { return 0; } > >> #endif > > > > Hmmm ... > > > > It's a bit unexpected to have fundamental syscalls like getuid() > > implemented as macros which can return 0 ... > > Why? > If those functions don't exist, this supplies replacements > (functions) that have the same semantics as the code in > Dan's patch: i.e. pretend UID==0 and GID==0. > > but with far fewer cpp directives. > > Doesn't it do the right thing? It's just a bit worrying that people might use getuid/getgid expecting them to return useful values under Windows, whereas in fact they would be 'silently' returning 0.