fadvise gclibc vs uclibc

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 09:55:13 UTC 2008


Hi,

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 05:35:24PM -0400, Corinna Schultz wrote:
>I noticed this difference between glibc and uclibc, in the fadvise  
>code (I'm trying to track down a bug on a ppc32 machine).
>
>Why the difference in the number of arguments? I don't know too much  
>about the system call mechanism, so this may be something obvious :)

There were historically bugs in that area IIRC due to the kernel lagging
a bit behind. Look for e.g. ASSUME_FADVISE64_64_SYSCALL and look at e.g.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=781
Tested patches are welcome.

HTH,

PS: since you seem to be interrested in powerpc, let me point you to
the heads-up that we will remove problematic parts of libm for powerpc,
in case you have not seen it:
http://uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2008-September/019988.html
If nobody fixes these issues by either getting properly licensed impls
or by reimplementing the problematic bits under an acceptable license,
then the powerpc specific hunks of libm will be removed from svn.



More information about the uClibc mailing list