Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:59:10 +0300 (MSK) From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sched_getcpu On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Rich Felker wrote: > > (this include could also be dropped; I think it's a matter of policy whether > > such includes are desirable or not, so please wait for comment from Rich) > > Policy is to always include the header with the public declaration > (and any feature test macros necessary to get it) so that the compiler > checks the implementation against the public declaration. This policy certain makes sense; I pointed that out because I've seen it violated; at least the following files violate it by defining something without including anything: arch/arm/src/__aeabi_atexit.c src/internal/procfdname.c src/misc/gethostid.c src/prng/__seed48.c src/signal/restore.c src/signal/sigrtmin.c src/stdlib/abs.c src/stdlib/labs.c src/stdlib/llabs.c src/time/__month_to_secs.c src/time/__year_to_secs.c (but e.g. in procfdname.c there's nothing to include because every caller declares the prototype, and also hardcodes the buffer size -- see my recent patch) > > This is wrong, as it doesn't set errno on error, and does not produce -1. This > > should be something like 'return s ? __syscall_ret(s) : c;' or maybe > > 'return __syscall_ret(s ? s : c);'. > > Why is an error even possible here? Is it just to account for ancient > kernels that lack the syscall? Apparently so -- afaics current kernels can only produce EFAULT, which cannot happen in this case. (I was wrong about the need to use __syscall_ret, but that's for another subthread) Alexander
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.