Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

> I see that some kind of mmap()ing is included.  Given no support from
> the swapper logic, I doubt it "works as designed".  Likewise for
> shm*().

Well, no problems have been reported with that code. So either nobody is
using it, or it works better than you do expect - at least in the
particular cases where it is being used...

> Likewise for dlopen().

I know that I'm using dlopen/sym/close a lot myself and I don't see, why
it shouldn't work. ;-)
If you're alluding to RTLD_LAZY not being supported, then let me state
that it's unsupported under *BSD as well, so I maintain the "works as
designed" claim at least for that function. (well, FreeBSD actually might
support it, but OpenBSD currently does not - nor do a number of BSD
clones, AFAIK).

> I expect that you must know all this as well.  What is the point then
> in stating things otherwise? 

Underline a need for testing. Unless functions like shm* are actually
available you'll never get feedback on the quality of the implementation
and missing features. I prefer to start with the fiction that everything
just should work and if an application doesn't compile/run as intended,
one can still start fixing bugs in libc or adding work-arounds for things
that just _are_ different.
That _can_/will admittedly be fruestrating if you're recompiling something
that already was successfully ported to OS/2 (or updating to a newer
version), as I've seen on the example of Perl myself (Posix/2's poll is
apparently slightly buggy when it comes to handling stdin/out), but I do
believe that it's easier in the long run ...

	Regards,
		Stefan
-- 
Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.