This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: (ARM EABI) ports-20061127 + kernel-headers-2.6.18 == broken system
- From: Steven Newbury <s_j_newbury at yahoo dot co dot uk>
- To: Steven Newbury <s_j_newbury at yahoo dot co dot uk>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 02:08:13 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: (ARM EABI) ports-20061127 + kernel-headers-2.6.18 == broken system
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=kRinEq4pw0QwiE9AH2oJDcp2L0ZTkMXQK27+X1R9/LYbBWk7iOEnVEITfBhwPKJFDdfOaEHhC2GE+Ol2p4G6vOlWLTc65WCdfpG9U74J6NukIWIRiK9+5WBeorye6SPsoZ8yk7iuP4ucCbS4vr4wrroI5neyfxNoY+Vw/F+0yRc=;
--- Steven Newbury <s_j_newbury@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 09:35:11PM +0000, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > > I've been looking in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux and
> > > ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm. The __ASSUME_ATFCTS define is only in
> > the
> > > core glibc kernel-features.h not in the ARM ports addon version. Should
> I
> > just
> > > update ports/.../arm/kernel-features.h? There's no reason to assume
> these
> > > syscalls haven't been implemented for ARM is there?
> >
> > The common version is used for all platforms in addition to the arm
> > specific one. I assume the syscalls are missing for ARM, or at least
> > for your kernel headers, and that assuming them is incorrect.
> >
> So the correct fix would be to implement the syscalls for ARM, and in the
> meantime _not_ define __ASSUME_ATFCTS for ARM in 2.6.18 (2.6.18 is the first
> kernel release with support for export of sanitised kernel headers for
> userspace), right?
It looks like ARM just got overlooked when the syscalls were hooked up. There
is nothing arch dependent which is why the generic kernel-features.h doesn't
make any exceptions.
I'll post an email to linux-arm-kernel to see if I can get the syscalls added
to ARM, just adding them myself would be a bit risky once if they end up with
differing numbers...
Steve
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com