On 23 April 2012 13:44, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Btw. I can't find a definition for __NR_accept4 in Bionic. __NR_accept
> is there. Are those constants between arches, would I be able to
> #define it myself?
ARM was missed off when accept4 was added. This was rectified for 2.6.36:
http://git.kerne
On segunda-feira, 23 de abril de 2012 15.44.16, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Btw. I can't find a definition for __NR_accept4 in Bionic. __NR_accept
> is there. Are those constants between arches, would I be able to
> #define it myself?
The system call numbers are arch-dependent. They come from ,
which
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:10 +0200
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 23 de abril de 2012 11.22.16, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > PS: if you're reading this and you want to run Wayland on your non-Linux
> > > system, you should also add those to your OS. Yesterday.
> >
> > Hi Thiago,
> >
>
On segunda-feira, 23 de abril de 2012 11.22.16, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > PS: if you're reading this and you want to run Wayland on your non-Linux
> > system, you should also add those to your OS. Yesterday.
>
> Hi Thiago,
>
> you speak with the voice of reason. Unfortunately, I doubt reason or
> s
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:04:32 +0200
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On sexta-feira, 20 de abril de 2012 16.46.52, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > Hi Kristian,
>> >
>> > finally I am getting the test framework up for my OS wrappers. I added
>> > aut
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:04:32 +0200
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 20 de abril de 2012 16.46.52, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Hi Kristian,
> >
> > finally I am getting the test framework up for my OS wrappers. I added
> > automatic fd leak checks, and helpers for checking fd leaks through
On sexta-feira, 20 de abril de 2012 16.46.52, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi Kristian,
>
> finally I am getting the test framework up for my OS wrappers. I added
> automatic fd leak checks, and helpers for checking fd leaks through
> exec(). They have their sanity tests.
>
> The other feature in this s
Nice, that's all very clever :) I merged it as is, but I was
wondering why you set errno to 0 in wl_os_socket_cloexec? If socket
returns -1, will set errno, and if it doesn't, you don't need to look
at errno. It's required for readdir and strtol, but shouldn't be
necessary for socket.
Kristian
Hi Kristian,
finally I am getting the test framework up for my OS wrappers. I added
automatic fd leak checks, and helpers for checking fd leaks through
exec(). They have their sanity tests.
The other feature in this series is the fallback for socket() and
SOCK_CLOEXEC flag, which is not supported