[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL3m8eAoSqZ_22G-WXWL4EDCu-WvCmn_k-MLOiHL1B7igy5Yuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:55:48 -0500
From: M Farkas-Dyck <strake888@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: __xmknod, __sysv_signal
On 30/04/2014, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> Sorry for taking a while to review this. I'd like to get it committed,
> but a few questions...
Ah, wasn't sure whether you meant to do this.
>> +int __xmknod(int ver, const char *path, mode_t mode, dev_t *dev)
>> +{
>> + return mknod (path, mode, dev);
>> +}
>
> I think this should be *dev or something; mknod takes dev_t, not
> dev_t*.
Yes, that seems a typo in [1].
> Also I don't really like having this in src/stat, but we don't really
> have a dedicated place for ABI-compat junk yet...
I don't like it either.
What is musl's general policy on ABI compat? The FAQ says solely that
"musl aims for a degree of feature-compatibility", not what degree. Is
full binary compatibility with glibc the goal?
If we mean to include such, we ought to choose where to keep the code first.
[1] http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/baselib---xmknod-1.html
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.
