[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170308162507.GY1520@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:25:07 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to
opt out of uapi definitions
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote:
> > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers,
> > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in
> > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants.
> > There is no such detection for other c libraries, for them the
> > _UAPI_DEF_* macros are always defined as 1, and so none of the possibly
> > conflicting definitions are suppressed.
> >
> > This patch enables non-glibc c libraries to request the suppression of
> > any specific interface by defining the corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macro
> > as 0.
> >
> > This patch together with the recent musl libc commit
> >
> > http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=04983f2272382af92eb8f8838964ff944fbb8258
>
> Would it be possible to amend the musl patch to define the macros to 1.
I don't follow. They're defined to 0 explicitly to tell the kernel
headers not to define their own versions of these structs, etc. since
they would clash. Defining to 1 would have the opposite meaning.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
