[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] RFC: A sys__test_and_set() implementation, 2nd iteration

To: Andreas Jaeger <>
Subject: Re: [patch] RFC: A sys__test_and_set() implementation, 2nd iteration
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:18:04 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc:,, Ralf Baechle <>, Jun Sun <>
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Reply-to: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
On 1 Jun 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

>  #include "sys/tas.h"
> +
> +#ifdef __NR__test_and_set
> +# ifdef __ASSUME__TEST_AND_SET
> +#  define __have_no__test_and_set 0
> Don't add this, compare how we do it in similar cases.

 Hmm, I looked at sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/getcwd.c.  It does it in a
similar way.  What's wrong with this approach?  I'm just asking -- it
looks I do not always guess glibc rules right and not everything is

 Actually I tried to avoid macros if at all possible but gcc refuses to
eliminate code even if that's something like:

static const int var = 1;
if (var)

It still generates the code to check the value of var, sigh...

 Also I feel a bit uneasy about placing the "#ifdef
__ASSUME__TEST_AND_SET" condition outside -- __NR__test_and_set might be
undefined due to outdated kernel headers even if someone specified the
--enable-kernel option.  Is it considered justified within glibc to bail
out at the compilation time in this case? 

>  extern int _test_and_set (int *p, int v) __THROW;
> +extern int ___test_and_set (int *p, int v) __THROW;
> Why do you export this here?

 It's a syscall wrapper.  We want to export syscall wrappers, don't we? 
And if we export a symbol, we should also declare it -- programs declaring
library symbols themselves are broken and doomed to fail sooner or later
-- have you seen what happens on glibc systems to old programs which
declare <string.h> functions due to the lack of appropriate declarations
in system headers at one time?

 If we don't want to export the wrapper, then fine -- I'll remove both the
symbol and the declaration. 


+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>