add epoll implementation to libwine_port (take 3)
meissner at suse.de
Tue Oct 19 11:12:55 CDT 2004
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:32:53AM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >You do realize that many (somewhat old) glibcs have epoll_create defined
> >that is hardwired to return E_NOSYS without calling the kernel, right?
> It won't do any worse than the code that is already there now, as we
> fall through to the select code if epoll_create returns an error.
> In the case of glibc that are missing epoll functions (like mine 2.3.2)
> it will do better.
> We could try to fall back to the syscall method if the glibc
> implementation returns an error, but first I'd like to try and get this
> more simple improvement accepted into the CVS.
The glibc method should have preference, and we should of course check for
ENOSYS. We should assume that glibc does it right in the long run.
(Any deployment scenario is most likely starting in years instead of right
So glibc use first, handhacked assembler then.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20041019/5530fe94/attachment.pgp
More information about the wine-devel