This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Do we think the __need_* interface is a good idea?
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 01:19:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: Do we think the __need_* interface is a good idea?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4e7494e6-2792-a62d-fc69-005ffc3e371c@redhat.com>
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> In the upstream kernel their signal.h has exactly the same
> issues that ours does, for example they need a definition of size_t:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/25/191
>
> I mention here how we solve this:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/364
>
> Is our use of special "hooks" like __need_size_t something we want
> to keep using or has someone thought of a better solution?
Zack's bits/types/*.h is a better solution. (For types from <stddef.h> I
think it would be reasonable still to use bits/types/*.h, with the headers
there serving to wrap the GCC header with __need_* defined.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com