This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:44:47 -0700, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote: > > 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. OK, so the problem is "scheduled to be solved". > > > 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? Sorry, that was ambiguous: my question was meant the other way round, whether you prefer having the Â@@... syntax used in SH's syscalls.list over changing all other architectures' Versions files for the sake of properly versioning SH's fanotify_mark symbol. I think that with the stub-syscalls.c issue (nearly) resolved, it is indeed clearer to confine the issue to the SH syscalls.list (as we have done with the Â@@... syntax). GrÃÃe, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |