From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 1 14:54:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18089 for current-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18065 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA06625; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:53:10 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199607012153.OAA06625@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: socketpair bug? To: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:53:10 -0700 (MST) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <96Jun30.222423pdt.177476@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> from "Bill Fenner" at Jun 30, 96 10:24:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > In message <199606271813.UAA02652@uriah.heep.sax.de> you write: > >See also my Usenet reply: socketpair() basically needs a similar libc > >syscall wrapper like pipe(). Right now, it uses the generic syscall > >wrapper which is wrong. (The XXX??'s can be removed again then. :) > > I think the answer is the other way around -- socketpair() works as it > is and just needs the two XXX'd lines removed, no need for it to have a > wrapper like pipe(). > > We went through this a while ago and I don't remember the outcome > (except, of course, that I didn't commit anything, but that's probably > just because I'm lazy) How do you put a wrapper in a foreign libc? Like a statically compiled SCO or BSDI or Linux binary? Or even a shared library using binary, without building the shared library (how do you do that for SCO?)? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.