> At 08:33 -0700 1998-09-14, Derrick J Brashear wrote: > >There are a few more syscalls in the newest code which won't report errors > >anymore but won't do anything, which will be in the next snapshot. The problem > >is presumably that glibc is testing for existance but not usefulness of > >syscalls and so it finds lots of which aren't implemented, when in reality it > >would be nice if it ignored them. > > glibc makes most of its assumptions based on the kernel headers installed > at the time it is built, and only does runtime testing in some cases.
So I gathered:-) -D
