[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
