Am 05.05.2010 12:05, Phil Blundell wrote: >>> I thought glibc was supposed to gracefully fall back on missing syscalls? >> >> May be, but not satisfactorily. >> >> E.g. we've seen that g_file_monitor (from glib) falls back to >> polling each second instead of using inotify_init. > > That sounds like it's just a bug in glibc. I guess you should fix it > there.
That's all very unsatisfyingly. I had a small look into the glibc sources. I could find the declarations for inotfiy_init1 and epoll_create1, but i could not find any fallback code if they do not exist in the running kernel. I also could not find something about such fallback code at all. FAQ 3.21 describes the problem what we have but for very old kernel versions (2.0 vs. 2.1/2.2) and it says nothing about glibc internal fallback handling but: "Your program should check at runtime whether the function works, and implement a fallback." So where did this assumption come from? Do you have examples for such fallbacks inside glibc? Regards, Steffen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
