Re: unlinkat

Hello,

On Fri, December 23, 2011 10:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> 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.

In my opinion libc's task is to give access to all system calls.
Linux has had *at() system calls for a while now, and in 5 years
it will had it for ages. Please add the system call stubs.

I wouldn't go glibc's way of adding emulator code in case the
system calls are not supported by the kernel.

Dietlibc is linux-only, it should at least try to support all
(sensible) Linux system calls. And it's not worth a compile-time
option as barely any code is added.

Greetings,

Indan