Re: posix compliance test

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:47:55PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think that supplying the function and returning an error is better and
> will let the tests work without causing excessive ifdefing of the sources.

I don't agree with this completely. Process-shared mutexes are
fundamentally not supported by our lwp_park/lwp_unpark interface without
jumping through a lot of hops. Failing the enable call therefore is
huge semantic change and checking for a working function a much harder
requirement than checking for the presence of a function.

Joerg