[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zx7CDzXFFHNtAIAv@pineapple>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:43:27 +0000
From: Yao Zi <ziyao@...root.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Prototypes without implementations
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 03:22:25PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> See above. Failing with ENOSYS and no side effects is a perfectly
> conforming implementation of most POSIX functions.
Yes, failing with ENOSYS could be conformant. But ioperm() and iopl()
aren't really a POSIX thing. Why make more pitfalls instead of easing
everyone's life?
For stuff like ioctl(), I do agree with that standing with POSIX is
correct, but in this case we aren't getting anything valuable with a
stub implementation. And I think it is not a hard work to omit both the
implementation and declaration on archs without these syscalls.
Thanks,
Yao Zi
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.
