[RFA:] add _mkdir_r, fixing fallout from "add mkstemps, mkdtemp"
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Wed Aug 12 22:32:00 GMT 2009
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:26:14 -0400
>> From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
>>
>
>
>> Actually, I don't agree with this. The better way to handle this is to
>> protect the code with HAVE_MKDIR and put in the libnosys logic directly
>> if it is not provided.
>>
>
> Can you rephrase the bit about the libnosys condition; should
> that part of the patch be applied with a big #ifndef HAVE_MKDIR
> around the guts of mkdir.c or what?
>
>
There is no need for libnosys changes. This is in line with fcntl and
rename support which have HAVE_XXX checks in newlib and no libnosys
functions.
>> Otherwise, this forces platforms to either
>> implement _mkdir or link with libnosys which is unreasonable.
>>
>
> I was under the illusion that all targets that care already did
> link with libnosys as a fallback, but with that prerequisite
> gone I agree conditionalizing the call makes better sense.
>
>
>> There are
>> other optional syscalls already being checked for in newlib. I have
>> put together a patch which I attached to this note. Let me know what
>> you think.
>>
>
> This would work for me, too...but IIUC the reent.h part of the
> patch I posted would still be be needed.
>
>
Yes, that's correct. I have checked in your newlib pieces with my
patch added to mktemp.c. There is no libnosys part required so that is
left out. Let me know if I missed anything.
-- Jeff J.
> brgds, H-P
>
More information about the Newlib
mailing list