On Tuesday 29 September 2015 10:41:40 Ben Noordhuis wrote: > > The hinted solution seems to be to completely drop the homemade wrappers. > > However I am confused by the baseline requirements shown in #351 [2] > > (kernel 2.6.18 + glibc 2.5). > > > > How should we proceed for the future there? Should we just drop all the > > syscall wrappers and assume libc has them all? Or introduce checks for > > them at configure time? Or just drop the problematic ones? > If the system call wrapper is available in glibc 2.5, it's okay to > drop libuv's wrapper if it causes problems.
So I'm reading this as "let's keep current custom wrappers and rework the problematic ones". In the specific cases, according to manpages: * epoll_pwait has been introduced in (kernel 2.6.19, glibc 2.6) * preadv/pwrite have been introduces id (kernel 2.6.30, glibc 2.10) So it is not ok to just use glibc helpers in those cases, right? As far as I understood, proper solution would be to change custom wrappers to accommodate for kernel quirks instead. As a sidenote: just for documentation purposes, are the compatibility baseline across supported systems noted down anywhere? > Configure time checks are not allowed because libuv may end up running > on an older system than the one it was compiled on. Ack. Cheers, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso) : :' : The Universal O.S. | lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG: 0xBB1A3A854F3BBEBF `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
