Stubbing out unavailable syscalls?

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:25:23PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bernhard Fischer [mailto:rep.dot.nop at gmail.com]
>> Sent: den 20 maj 2008 22:20
>> To: Joakim Tjernlund
>> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
>> Subject: Re: Stubbing out unavailable syscalls?
>> 
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:07:26PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> 
>> >Still think ease of cross compiling is more important than stubs.
>> 
>> I don't see how this is in any way related to cross compilation since
>> sysnum.h is created just fine either way. Please elaborate?
>
>configure often tests for presence of a function by compiling
>a test program which will fail when that function is undefined.

There are only a very few functions stubbed out.
>
>> 
>> >Are there any apps that is broken due to missing stubs?
>> 
>> Anything that checks if a syscall "works" is potentially affected.
>
>Yes obviously, I wanted a list of such apps(if there are any)

For some functions a stub is mandated by standards (e.g. crypt(),
encrypt(), setkey())
>
>> 
>> >I can live with stubs behind a config option, default off.

My motivations comes from being able to turn them off, so i fully agree.