Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:08:14 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Clash between 'netinet/if_ether.h' and 'linux/if_ether.h' On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:15:53 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:13:43PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > > It's a bug to be including linux/if_ether.h, and there's no way to > > > work around this without depending on kernel headers, which musl will > > > > Patch that does work around it: > > > > -#ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H > > +/* Check for <linux/if_ether.h> - _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H will also work */ > > +#if !defined(_NETINET_IF_ETHER_H) || !defined(ETH_ALEN) > > #define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H > > +#define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H /* linux/if_ether.h defines the same stuff */ > > That is a clever workaround, but the way it's written it breaks > include-guard heuristics. Instead, it should be.. > > #ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H > #define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H > > #ifndef ETH_ALEN > ... > #endif > > #endif > > But does it work the other way around, i.e. if <netinet/if_ether.h> is > included first? That's what the second change is for: > > +#define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H /* linux/if_ether.h defines the same stuff */ > I'd still rather just press upstream to fix this stupid bug if we can. > This is the kind of thing that only affects a small number of broken > applications, and as such, I really question whether it merits ugly > workarounds. Agreed. I mainly mentioned that because I take "*can't* do <xyz> without <abc>" as a challenge. -- Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
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.