inotify patch

[Peter S. Mazinger]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org 
> > [mailto:uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Frysinger
> > Sent: 21 June 2006 01:52
> > To: uclibc at uclibc.org
> > Cc: Peter S. Mazinger
> > Subject: Re: inotify patch
> > 
> > On Tuesday 20 June 2006 13:49, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > - uClibc normally does not provide dummies for the case a 
> > syscall is not
> > >     present
> > 
> > i was thinking about this ... it's a good idea to always 
> > provide the symbol 
> > even if it isnt supported, otherwise you have an inconsistent 
> > ABI and that's 
> > bad mmmkay
> > 
> > glibc does this by just setting errno to -ENOSYS and 
> > returning an error
> > 
> > to save on space, what if we do something like:
> >  - define two internal functions like 
> > __uclibc_not_implemented_return_{0,1}
> > the functions would set errno to -ENOSYS and return the 
> > respective value
> >  - create some macro's in libc-symbols.h to alias to these stubs
> > #define libc_enosys_stub_ret1(name) \
> >     weak_alias(name, __uclibc_not_implemented_return_1)
> 
> This makes the configure step for cross compiling difficult. How should
> one test for a feature without running a test program?
> 
>  Jocke

As I understand the above
#ifdef __NR_x should be OK even if cross-compiling (it is not 
bullet-proof, because syscall numbers were introduced partly earlier, 
before it was really implemented)

Peter

-- 
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2