Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:52:04 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: __xmknod, __sysv_signal On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:18:33PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > A dynamic-linked binary blob I have wants these. Are these appropriate > to include in musl? I have a patch ready. Send the patch and I'll review it. For __xmknod, I think this is just the ABI symbol glibc uses for mknod, and we could certainly add it (though I question whether there are any useful programs using it that couldn't just be rebuilt against musl). For __sysv_signal, I'm not sure what we should do. Its semantics are different from signal(), but it's doubtful that any program actually intended to request the sysv semantics (they're fundamentally broken and have race conditions that renders any program using them buggy) so it might just make more sense to have it be an alias for signal than to actually implement the broken sysv behavior. (Most likely is that glibc's weird behavior with certain feature test macros caused a program to inadvertently pull in the broken sysv version of signal rather than the default one.) 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.