On Thursday 07 February 2008, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:40:57PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > A number of programs, such as busybox, contain calls to fork which may > > not necessarily get executed at runtime. On nommu systems, this > > currently produces link errors since the function doesn't exist. > > > > In our Blackfin tree, we use the following patch (by Mike IIRC) to > > convert the link error into a warning. Any objections to installing > > this?
err, not quite ... you added fork() as a stub for no-mmu and i complained about it existing at all, but then just added the link warning so that it wouldnt go completely unnoticed. > FWIW, I think the link error is more useful than a stub version. Most > programs don't handle fork failure gracefully. i'd agree. i dont think ive seen code yet that handles the case where fork() is not actually implemented other than simply aborting. the code may as not exist if fork() doesnt exist. the default mainline no-mmu build should not have a fork() symbol ... whether we want to add a config option for no-mmu "Add stubs for unimplemented symbols" to control this and things like daemon() would be ok i think -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc