| 18 Oct 2025 |
 matthewcroughan | Is the suggestion that the compiler provides correct? | 14:01:39 |
| matthewcroughan | use of undeclared identifier 'SYS_close_range'; did you mean 'unix_close_range'? | 14:01:46 |
| matthewcroughan | SYS_close_range and unix_close_range are both used in the same file | 14:04:07 |
| matthewcroughan | * SYS_close_range and unix_close_range are both used in the same file (src/libutil/unix/file-descriptor.cc) | 14:04:17 |
| matthewcroughan | https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/09/13/1 | 14:05:32 |
 dramforever | no because this is inside unix_close_range | 14:05:37 |
| dramforever | #if defined(__linux__) || defined(__FreeBSD__)
static int unix_close_range(unsigned int first, unsigned int last, int flags)
{
# if !HAVE_CLOSE_RANGE
return syscall(SYS_close_range, first, last, (unsigned int) flags);
# else
return close_range(first, last, flags);
# endif
}
#endif
| 14:06:05 |
| matthewcroughan | ah yes, so it's like, musl doesn't have it | 14:06:25 |
| dramforever | implementing unix_close_range in terms of unix_close_range would be funny ... no it wouldn't work | 14:06:25 |
| matthewcroughan | so it tries to use SYS_close_range | 14:06:29 |
| dramforever | what musl version are you on again | 14:09:08 |
| matthewcroughan | 1.25, everything I'm doing is based on staging-next always | 14:09:48 |
| matthewcroughan | if I'm ever behind it's by a day or two | 14:09:55 |
| matthewcroughan | * 1.2.5, everything I'm doing is based on staging-next always | 14:10:11 |
