Re: unistd.h and 'extern's and 'syscall' "standard(?)"

And furthermore, it's been around in Unix and unix-like systems for a very long time. Sounds like the lack of man page is an oversight. Anybody want to write one ? Tim On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:38:24PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: > >of action to take. Seeing as you work for suse, would you k

Re: unistd.h and 'extern's and 'syscall' "standard(?)"

>of action to take. Seeing as you work for suse, would you know >where this 'syscall(3)' interface should be documented? Is it >supposed to be present in all distro's? It's documented in the glibc manual. Yes, it should be present in all glibc based distributions. p. - To unsubscribe fro

Re: unistd.h and 'extern's and 'syscall' "standard(?)"

Andreas Schwab wrote: > Don't use kernel headers in user programs. Just use syscall(3). > > Andreas. --- I'm on a SuSE71 system and have all the manpages installed: law> man syscall No manual entry for syscall The problem is not so much for user programs as library writers that

Re: unistd.h and 'extern's and 'syscall' "standard(?)"

LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> I have a question. Some architectures have "system calls" |> implemented as library calls (calls that are "system calls" on ia32) |> For example, the expectation on 'arm', seems to be that sys_sync |> is in a library. On alpha, sys_open appears to

unistd.h and 'extern's and 'syscall' "standard(?)"

I have a question. Some architectures have "system calls" implemented as library calls (calls that are "system calls" on ia32) For example, the expectation on 'arm', seems to be that sys_sync is in a library. On alpha, sys_open appears to be in a library. Is this correct? Is it