[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:38:53 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add basic sys/cdefs.h found on most unix
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:38:52AM +0200, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote:
> On 10/21/2012 01:18 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:15:43 +0200
> >Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@...toolkit.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Signed-off-by: Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@...toolkit.org>
> >>---
> >> include/sys/cdefs.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 include/sys/cdefs.h
> >I'm pretty sure that the last three times sys/cdefs.h was proposed,
> >it was rejected.
>
> Unfortunately many packages (wrongly?) use to rely on macros defined there,
I've found it's really very few; an equivalent sys/cdefs.h does not
exist on most systems. It was never intended for use by applications;
it's an internal part of glibc (and perhaps also some BSDs?) used for
handling backwardsness like pre-ANSI C compilers (abstracting const
away as __const, or abstracting away prototypes with __P()) and
optional use of GCC-specific features.
For things like 'extern "C"', there's no reason to use sys/cdefs.h;
the just writing the code it expands to inline is much more
clear/informative and provides better performance as a nice side
effect.
> sometimes indirectly via <features.h>.
I don't see what you mean by this.
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.
