Re: [PATCH] find RLIM_NLIMITS correctly on Cygwin

[Jun T <takimoto-j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 2020/01/14 1:42, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Jun T wrote on Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:00 +00:00:
>> 
>>> 2020/01/12 5:15, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The part that's not clear to me is how we'd even know that «8» is a valid value for
>>> the first actual argument to getrlimit().  Currently, the code assumes that the
>>> values of RLIMIT_* macros are consecutive small integers, but that is not guaranteed
>>> by any standard, is it?
>> 
>> There is no guarantee, but current version of ulimit builtin accepts any number
>> for -N (and output error). limit builtin accepts only the resource name,
>> and maybe we accept "unknonw8" only for getrlimit() but not for setrlimit()?
> 
> Sorry, I don't follow.  Why shouldn't we accept "unknown8" in the limit-setting syntaxes?

Sorry for my unclear English.

Why do you think that knowing "8" is a valid resource number is important?

I think we can just call {get, set}rlimit() with any resource number, but if you
think it better to avoid using questionable resource number, then we can avoid
calling setrlimit() that may actually change the limit of "unknown" resource.
But ulimit -N 8 can change the limit anyway, so I think we can call {get, set}rlimit()
with any resource number specified by the user.