On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 02 March 2012 01:27:00 Ismael Luceno wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:35:19 -0500 Rich Felker wrote: > > > On the other hand, if you want to include 75% of the functional code > > > needed for posix_spawn, why not go ahead and include the last 25% so > > > that it actually works? > > > > Because worse is better. Today things will compile, tomorrow they will > > work. I hope. > > as Rich said, i don't see the point in adding a large chunk of code that, in > the end, doesn't really implement things > > if you're just posting things that you don't intend to get merged, please > include those details in the patch summary and/or body.
Looking again I think it might have been partly an oversight. Glibc has the mildly odd policy of putting stub code in place for the actual posix_spawn function in the main source tree, because they consider the actual implementation system-dependent and thus put it in the sysdeps tree, and it looks like he might have just missed that when copying the code.. Rich _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
