Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:10:25 GMT From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, Drew DeVault <sir@...wn.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv64: correct struct __ucontext name On Sunday, December 6, 2020 10:06:49 AM MST Rich Felker wrote: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 04:55:39PM +0000, Ariadne Conill wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2020 5:49:25 AM MST Drew DeVault wrote: > > > On Sun Dec 6, 2020 at 3:51 AM EST, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > > * Drew DeVault <sir@...wn.com> [2020-12-05 18:10:06 +0000]: > > > > > This makes it consistent with other architectures and fixes some > > > > > issues > > > > > with downstream software. > > > > > > > > which software? > > > > > > > > glibc uses struct ucontext_t too and user code should use ucontext_t > > > > without struct. > > > > Some glibc architecture ports use the struct __ucontext and even struct > > ucontext names, or at least did in the past. > > > > > libucontext, which does use ucontext_t. > > > > > > In fact, the issue was more related to the type conflict with > > > ucontext.h, which declared struct __ucontext in the scope of its > > > function declarations due to the naming mismatch. > > > > glibc uses the POSIX 2004 standardized ucontext_t type in its public > > definitions. I believe musl should do the same. > > This produces a compile-time error is ucontext.h is included without > the right feature test macros, since signal.h will not have defined > ucontext_t in that case. That's why the public declarations must use > the struct tag. Bummer. In that case, I suggest musl use the same struct tag consistently. It should probably be struct ucontext_t for consistency with glibc. Ariadne
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.