On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Introduce a new accept4() system call. The addition of this system call >> >> > /* test_accept4.c >> >> > #ifdef __x86_64__ >> > #define SYS_accept4 288 >> > #elif __i386__ >> ^^^^^^^^ >> defined(__i386__) Whoops. >> > #define USE_SOCKETCALL 1 >> > #define SYS_ACCEPT4 18 >> > #else >> > #error "Sorry -- don't know the syscall # on this architecture" >> > #endif >> >> Anyway, it's just a test program. Succeeded on m68k using socketcall. > > It _should_ work even without the 'defined()'. Didn't it? It did. I successfully used it for testing on i386. > Unknown symbols should expand to '0' in preprocessor value evaluation. Of > course, the compiler may warn about the practice, but it shouldn't be > technically wrong. -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
