inotify patch

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----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