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.