We've talked about this many times in the past, but partners struggle to
understand "expected 38, got 22" in these contexts, and I always have to
go and check the header files just to be sure I'm sure.
I actually think the glibc geterrorname_np() function (which would
return "ENOSYS" rather than "Function not implemented") would be more
helpful, but I'll have to go and implement that first, and then come
back.
Being forced to go through all our errno assertions did also make me
want to use a more consistent style for our ENOSYS assertions in
particular --- there's a particularly readable idiom, and I'll also come
back and move more of those checks to the most readable idiom.
I've added a few missing `errno = 0`s before tests, and removed a few
stray `errno = 0`s from tests that don't actually make assertions about
errno, since I had to look at every single reference to errno anyway.
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Iba7c56f2adc30288c3e00ade106635e515e88179
This is a bit bogus because it's been removed from glibc (though not
thoroughly) and is never useful on Android (because the system calls
in question are compiled out of Android kernels, and SELinux would
disallow them even if you weren't running an Android kernel). This
also means that on glibc you need to include <linux/sem.h> for this
and on bionic you need <sys/sem.h> (and for either if you #include
the other file, you won't get this union).
Bug: https://github.com/android-ndk/ndk/issues/400
Test: added new test
Change-Id: I47f721da77515531f616d6ad8479bfbc9b60ee47
Also fix <sys/ipc.h>.
Not useful except to systems/bringup folks for testing. Trivial tests
added, and double-checked under strace to see that things look right.
x86 -- which works differently to everything else -- tested on the host.
Bug: http://b/27952303
Change-Id: I328534e994ae9e90755f545478fba03038c0bb94
