On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Mikael Lund Jepsen, ICCC wrote:
> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> This can simply be dropped into the proper tests/ subdir, no?
>>
> I'm not yet familiar with the test suite, so I had not considered
> putting it in there, but I think it is definitel
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> This can simply be dropped into the proper tests/ subdir, no?
>
I'm not yet familiar with the test suite, so I had not considered
putting it in there, but I think it is definitely a good idea.
I just looked briefly at the (quite elaborate) test skeleton and a f
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:39:33PM +0100, Mikael Lund Jepsen, ICCC wrote:
> Mikael Lund Jepsen, ICCC wrote:
>>
>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
+ /* skip opening slash */
+ if (*name == '/')
+++name;
>>>
>>> I think skipping all leading '/' is better:
>>>for (; *name ==
Mikael Lund Jepsen, ICCC wrote:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
+ /* skip opening slash */
+ if (*name == '/')
+++name;
I think skipping all leading '/' is better:
for (; *name == '/'; ++name);
I took the newlib code verbatim to keep the number of different
implementations down,
but
>
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> + /* skip opening slash */
> + if (*name == '/')
> +++name;
>
>
> I think skipping all leading '/' is better:
>for (; *name == '/'; ++name);
>
> I took the newlib code verbatim to keep the number of different
> implementations down,
> but if we are m
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
+ /* skip opening slash */
+ if (*name == '/')
+++name;
I think skipping all leading '/' is better:
for (; *name == '/'; ++name);
I took the newlib code verbatim to keep the number of different
implementations down,
but if we are making changes I think
> + /* skip opening slash */
> + if (*name == '/')
> +++name;
I think skipping all leading '/' is better:
for (; *name == '/'; ++name);
Jocke
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Hi all,
This patch adds shm_open() and shm_unlink() to librt.
For my own purposes, I have git'ed uclibc and made the patch from
there, so let me know if you need it in another format.
The included testapp simply creates shared memory area in a parent
process, writes test data to it and opens
Mikael Lund Jepsen, ICCC wrote:
> Hi all,
> I cannot see the shm_open / shm_unlink functions implemented in librt.
> Is there any reason (bloat, ?) for not including these?
>
as simply it is reported in uClibc_vs_SuSv3.txt, they are optional and
simply not implemented until now.
> I've tried tak
Hi all,
I cannot see the shm_open / shm_unlink functions implemented in librt.
Is there any reason (bloat, ?) for not including these?
I've tried taking shm_open.c and shm_unlink.c from newlib and dropped
them in librt, and so far it seems to be working as expected. I have not
done any extensive
10 matches
Mail list logo