Re: unlinkat

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Jorge Almeida wrote:

> might not want it in dietlibc. The benefit (I think) is smaller binaries: no
> need to allocate a stralloc for the path of every file I want to delete;

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Laurent Bercot wrote:

>  You could have a compile-time option saying whether or not to include
> the new syscalls into the diet libc.


Yes, but Felix’ point is: your application must include code
for the “those syscalls are not present” case _anyway_ unless
you do a Poettering, so there is no factual benefit from in‐
cluding those new GNUatures in dietlibc.

(I recently argued against adding “>;” to POSIX sh for the
same reason.)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)