[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d9ab212-6c80-f7fa-4be5-87b567ada949@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:22:00 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of
uapi definitions
On 03/09/2017 01:14 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> the other way (linux header included first) is
> problematic because linux headers don't follow
> all the standards the libc follows, they violate
> namespace rules in their struct definitions, so
> the libc definitions are necessarily incompatible
> with them and thus different translation units can
> end up refering to the same object through
> incompatible types which is undefined.
> (even if the abi matches and thus works across
> the syscall interface, a sufficiently smart
> toolchain can break such code at link time,
> and since the libc itself uses its own definitons
> that's what user code should use too).
I don't think this is relevant in this context. LTO implementations
have to deal with this already. For glibc's sake alone, it must be
supported to link together code using differing feature test macros.
Thanks,
Florian
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.
