On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:25:23PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bernhard Fischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: den 20 maj 2008 22:20 >> To: Joakim Tjernlund >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Stubbing out unavailable syscalls? >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:07:26PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >> >Still think ease of cross compiling is more important than stubs. >> >> I don't see how this is in any way related to cross compilation since >> sysnum.h is created just fine either way. Please elaborate? > >configure often tests for presence of a function by compiling >a test program which will fail when that function is undefined.
There are only a very few functions stubbed out. > >> >> >Are there any apps that is broken due to missing stubs? >> >> Anything that checks if a syscall "works" is potentially affected. > >Yes obviously, I wanted a list of such apps(if there are any) For some functions a stub is mandated by standards (e.g. crypt(), encrypt(), setkey()) > >> >> >I can live with stubs behind a config option, default off. My motivations comes from being able to turn them off, so i fully agree. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
