It's not allowed for a shell user to create a fifo in /data/local/tmp.
Make the test do nothing if not run as root.
Bug: 17646702
(cherry picked from commit 6c69afdb6d)
Change-Id: Ia3a862ed4586413b7bb393557ab57e0a7141d888
This means all our stdio implementation is now the OpenBSD implementation.
The only thing we lose is the STDIO_THREAD_LOCK calls but they were no-ops
anyway.
We should probably talk to upstream about this. Either fix the locking or,
preferably, encourage them to move away from this pooling (especially since
there's no eviction policy).
Bug: 17154680
Change-Id: Ie2523e444a7d0965b8d141d57e3e11f6432d5b9a
This is needed when building the linker against a libc that was built
with coverage information.
Bug: 17553780
Change-Id: If131002e067dd7768fc657c30e62c42a45c05ace
strtoll(3), strtoull(3), wcstoll(3), and wcstoull(3) all take an _int_
as a base, not a size_t. This is an ABI compatibility issue.
Bug: 17628622
Change-Id: I17f8eead34ce2112005899fc30162067573023ec
The debuggerd case can probably never happen, because you're crashing at this
point anyway. The system property one seems possible though.
Change-Id: Idba6a4f1d68587ec5b320d1e25f0b6a987ea32a0
fpathconf(3) and pathconf(3) can share code. There's no such
header file as <pathconf.h>. glibc/POSIX and BSD disagree about where
the _POSIX_* definitions should go.
Change-Id: I4a67f1595c9f5fbb26700a131178eedebd6bf712
This was already present for the other architectures. I think we skipped
this because glibc seems to have an incorrect definition (int rather than
long), but the kernel has the sane definition (just not in a uapi header).
Change-Id: I0d47a424b505804389853dd8632693dad55a3907
Upstream has implemented lgammal/lgammal_r for ld128, and fixed the
sign problem we reported with all the lgamma*_r functions and -0.
Bug: 17471883
Change-Id: Ibb175d9cab67efae75f1010796fd44c9ba6ce4fc
From C99 standard: “The nextafter functions determine the next representable value, in the type of the function,
after x in the direction of y, where x and y are first converted to the type of the function”.
The next representable value of 0.0 in direction of -1.0 is -4.9406564584124654e-324, not 0.0.
Similar thing holds for nextafterf, nextafterl, nexttowardf, nexttoward, and nexttowardl.
The tests pass either way, since the error is within the tolerance, but how it is written is wrong.
Change-Id: I1338eeffe3de8031a48f46e1b07146bc07dc2f0a
Signed-off-by: Jingwei Zhang <jingwei.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mingwei Shi <mingwei.shi@intel.com>
