[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221211110723.GI98588@port70.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 12:07:23 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Yuriy Chernyshov <georgthegreat@...il.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Various conflicts with linux system headers (ioctl.h)
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2022-12-11 00:53:35 -0500]:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Yuriy Chernyshov wrote:
> > The following workaround helps, but looks quite ugly:
> >
> > --- arch/generic/bits/ioctl.h (b4624b83eafbdd5f2e2c37374d62426c27687f35)
> > > +++ arch/generic/bits/ioctl.h (d545cbc1ae3f5c9132eb26b176bef3638c9d8063)
> > > @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> > > +#undef _IO
> > > +#undef _IOC
> > > +#undef _IOR
> > > +#undef _IOW
> > > +#undef _IOWR
> > > +
> > > #define _IOC(a,b,c,d) ( ((a)<<30) | ((b)<<8) | (c) | ((d)<<16) )
> > > #define _IOC_NONE 0U
> > > #define _IOC_WRITE 1U
> > >
> >
> > Is it possible to get official solution for the macro conflict?
>
> It's explicitly unsupported to include linux/* headers that might
> produce conflicting definitions *before* the libc headers they might
> conflict with. Does the same problem happen if you put the linux/*
> headers after?
i don't think reordering can fix the conflict as linux defines the
macros unconditionally. (and glibc relies on the linux definitions)
> > NB: we have to use linux/fs.h in order to get BLKGETSIZE64 constant defined
> > which is missing in sys/ioctl.h.
musl defines that in sys/mount.h (just like glibc)
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.
