From Ben's email below it sounds as though we need a test for posix_madvise and use it in favor of alternatives such as madvise when it's available:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: madvise on Solaris
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:00:30 +0000
From: John Taylor <email@example.com>
To: msebor AT gmail.com
Anyway, I build stdcxx-4.2.1 on Solaris 10 and SXCE.
I notice that madvise doesn't get recognized, due to how the
function is defined. Not a problem. Opensolaris, and late
versions of SXCE, have introduced a function wrapper called
posix_madvise, which basically wraps the madvise function
so that it's more palletable to the C++ compiler.
In line 134 of src/memattr.cpp, there's a comment that I don't really
nor can I find any reference to the "unreliable" comment via google or stdcxx
I admit to not being a very experience c/c++ programmer, but from my
read of the solaris man pages for mincore and madvise, I'm not
entirely convinced that this is a better work around. Does anyone really
know what this "unreliable" means?
Would it be appropriate to "duplicate" Sun's wrapper for S10 and
SXCE/OSOL which don't have posix_madvise (given it's CDDL license
status) and use posix_madvise where approrpriate?
|Status||Open [ 1 ]||In Progress [ 3 ]|
|Transition||Time In Source Status||Execution Times||Last Executer||Last Execution Date|
|3m 5s||1||Martin Sebor||18/Jan/10 01:03|