Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:55:16 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: capset() capget() syscalls On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:13:55PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > >>>>> "RF" == Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes: > > >> futex > > RF> glibc does not expose this as far as I know. I would not be opposed > RF> to having sys/futex.h however. It's less ugly than having to use > RF> linux/futex.h and syscall()... > > +1. <sys/futex.h> and a separate library seems to be the best way to > support the futex interface. Such a lib might try to be portable with > support for other lock and semaphore apis when futex(7)s are unavailable. With something like futex that's a trivial syscall, I'm not sure what qualifies it for a separate lib rather than inclusion in libc. The library would be <20 bytes of code on most archs... That's not to say I think we have to expose it in musl, but I think using a separate library (especially if there's any chance of it being built as a .so rather than just .a) is a worse choice than just writing syscall(SYS_futex, ...) in your source... Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.