Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question] Is VMS compatibility is still a goal? #13

Open
Houkime opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

[Question] Is VMS compatibility is still a goal? #13

Houkime opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@Houkime
Copy link

Houkime commented May 11, 2020

In the

Name must not be more than 15 characters because of $ASCEFC.

$ASCEFC (Associate Common Event Flag Cluster) limitations are mentioned, but
#define qdb_cNameDbLock "/tmp/pwr_qdb_lock"

is already longer than 15 (it is 18)

hence the question:
Is VMS compatibility is still a goal or all of VMS-related stuff can be disregarded/deleted?

and also:
what are the actual limitations on shared memory section names then?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant