> Am 26.10.2019 um 03:53 schrieb Guillermo <gdiazhartu...@gmail.com>: > > El vie., 25 oct. 2019 a las 17:01, Jens Rehsack escribió: >> >>> [...] >>> configure:2634: result: no >>> >>> As you can see, only the equivalent of a skarnet.org 'choose cl' is used >>> here. >> >> Wasn't that clear enough when I told that weeks before? >> For any typical library function, that is enough. > > In cases like this, not without precautions.
Wouldn't you please remove parts of the statement? > This only worked because > Autoconf happens to know about GNU libc's __stub_* macros, and adds > garbage to the test source file if the relevant one is defined, so > that the compile phase fails. If the compile phase had succeeded, the > link phase would have as well. The configure script would have > declared that lchown() is available, and one would have ended up with > a useless lchown() substitute. Uh - like the handling for __builtin_* stuff of clang. But there is no need to do that, checking for SYS_getrandom tells you about the syscall. Anyway, the knowledge about __sub_* tells whether the libc configure stage was done correctly. Probably it's reasonable to do both ... check whether it's no stub and check whether the syscall is available. Cheers -- Jens Rehsack - rehs...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
