PATCH: glibc 2.3.x and errno
dank at kegel.com
Fri Jan 24 14:08:11 CST 2003
Andreas Mohr wrote:
> I for one would feel much better if we simply rejected that particular
> "broken" glibc version
Not sure it's broken - it may just be the first version using
NPTL for threads.
> and supported a *new* glibc method of properly
> interfacing errno things in a newer glibc version...
> (maybe have some "advanced" setting in glibc that enables all sorts of
> funky interfacing capabilities in case a program needs it)
> After all if Wine needs this errno support, then there's probably
> a need for it, so it's glibc's bloody obligation to make sure there's
> proper support IMHO.
> BTW: why did they even choose to abandon a public errno_location ?
You might want to ask that question (very carefully, since Ulrich
is a hothead) on the NPTL mailing list. See
for more info. My advice: don't try to get glibc to change on
this, figure out how you can adapt. It'll be easier, believe me.
More information about the wine-patches