[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1364169089.15703.67@driftwood>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:51:29 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Difficulty emulating F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC
On 03/23/2013 09:10:10 PM, Zvi Gilboa wrote:
> On 03/23/2013 09:59 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> This uglifies fcntl.c a bit more, but I think it works. Does the
>> above
>> reasoning make sense? Any other ideas?
>
> In the hope that this matches the project's spirit... how about
> running
> these tests during the build, and have a script (or a simple test
> program)
> #define whether the target architecture supports F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC or
> not?
> Potentially, this test could be added at the very end of alltypes.h.sh
The system you build on and the system you run on aren't always
identical. (Especially when you try to build portable static multicall
binaries.)
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
