This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: SH build problem with fanotify_mark
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: SH build problem with fanotify_mark
- References: <20120728.102848.267571852.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp><20120728055124.739D52C0EB@topped-with-meat.com><20120728.160915.205445510.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp><20120730181152.88B8E2C0C0@topped-with-meat.com><87y5lyvkfx.fsf@schwinge.name>
> I'm not reproducing the issue originally reported. Without looking at
> all at the stub-syscalls infrastructure (and I don't have a
> stub-syscalls.c file), I'm guessing that's presumably because my kernel
> headers are "too new" (Linux 3.2.10).
Right. You can see the problem by adding a line to some syscalls.list file:
frobozz EXTRA frobozz i: __frobozz frobozz@@GLIBC_2.16
Since there is no __NR_frobozz, this will get into stub-syscalls.c.
> Does this mean that the problem is solved once applying the
> roland/getrlimit changes?
Yes.
> > Does this not get the right version without the @@... syntax?
>
> As Kaz already pointed out:
> <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-06/msg00294.html> and
> following. Does that approach survive your post-mortem examination?
I'm sure that would indeed obviate the need for using @ syntax in
syscalls.list. Was that the question?
Thanks,
Roland