Paul Eggert writes:
> +# if (!defined LDAV_DONE \
> + && (defined __ANDROID__ ? 13 <= __ANDROID_API__ : __defined __linux__))
> +/* non-Android Linux without glibc, Android 3.2+, Cygwin
> */
Small typo here caused by Haiku build to fail like so:
getloadavg.c: In fu
On 2025-04-21 10:19, Bruno Haible wrote:
when writing 'defined __linux__' one typically thinks about
GNU/Linux and musl-based systems. Android systems are often so different
and always require separate testing.
OK, thanks for the review. I installed the following patch to Gnulib. It
should wor
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > This doesn't work as __linux__ is also defined under Android, alas...
>
> OK, but then I'm puzzled by the "(defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__)"
Its purpose is to remind the reader that Android is included.
Because when writing 'defined __linux__' one typically thinks
On 2025-04-21 05:15, Po Lu wrote:
-# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__)
- /* Linux without glibc, Android, Cygwin
*/
+# if !defined LDAV_DONE && (defined __linux__ || 13 <= __ANDROID_API__)
+ /*
Bruno Haible writes:
> Po Lu wrote:
>> >> these Reddit threads, where multiple respondents are either considering
>> >> or have acquired this device or its successor:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://old.reddit.com/r/ereader/comments/1esc5gx/tolino_shine_1_gen_in_2024/
>> >> (Android 2.3)
>> >
>>
Po Lu wrote:
> >> these Reddit threads, where multiple respondents are either considering
> >> or have acquired this device or its successor:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://old.reddit.com/r/ereader/comments/1esc5gx/tolino_shine_1_gen_in_2024/
> >> (Android 2.3)
> >
> > These seem to be isolated offer
Bruno Haible writes:
> Po Lu wrote:
>> these Reddit threads, where multiple respondents are either considering
>> or have acquired this device or its successor:
>>
>>
>> https://old.reddit.com/r/ereader/comments/1esc5gx/tolino_shine_1_gen_in_2024/
>> (Android 2.3)
>
> These seem to be isola
Po Lu wrote:
> these Reddit threads, where multiple respondents are either considering
> or have acquired this device or its successor:
>
>
> https://old.reddit.com/r/ereader/comments/1esc5gx/tolino_shine_1_gen_in_2024/
> (Android 2.3)
These seem to be isolated offers. Not something with a s
Paul Eggert writes:
> I think it unlikely, but if we run into any we can complicate Gnulib
> later. Could you please review and try the attached patch? Thanks.
>
> diff --git a/lib/getloadavg.c b/lib/getloadavg.c
> index 9da41c16c0..4e0f6d81b3 100644
> --- a/lib/getloadavg.c
> +++ b/lib/getloadav
Bruno Haible writes:
> Po Lu wrote:
>> >> Looking at https://apilevels.com/, especially the column "Cumulative
>> >> usage",
>> >> it seems there are no users of Android API level 13 or older any more.
>> >
>> > My experience differs
>
> My experience agrees with https://apilevels.com/ : Most sm
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Probably. I don't know whether any non-Android systems exist where
> > __ANDROID_API__ is defined.
>
> I think it unlikely
Yes, very unlikely.
> Could you please review and try the attached patch? Thanks.
The patch looks good to me, except that we need to hear from Po Lu
Po Lu wrote:
> >> Looking at https://apilevels.com/, especially the column "Cumulative
> >> usage",
> >> it seems there are no users of Android API level 13 or older any more.
> >
> > My experience differs
My experience agrees with https://apilevels.com/ : Most smartphones
built around 2011-2012
On 2025-04-20 21:54, Po Lu wrote:
Probably. I don't know whether any non-Android systems exist where
__ANDROID_API__ is defined.
I think it unlikely, but if we run into any we can complicate Gnulib
later. Could you please review and try the attached patch? Thanks.
diff --git a/lib/getloadav
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 2025-04-20 18:45, Po Lu wrote:
>
>> -# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__)
>> +# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__) \
>> + && (!defined __ANDROID__ || __ANDROID_API__ >= 13)
>
> Wouldn't the following b
On 2025-04-20 18:45, Po Lu wrote:
-# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__)
+# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined __linux__ || defined __ANDROID__) \
+ && (!defined __ANDROID__ || __ANDROID_API__ >= 13)
Wouldn't the following be simpler, and work as well?
#if
Po Lu writes:
> Bruno Haible writes:
>
>> Po Lu wrote:
>>> The latest Gnulib getloadavg.c does not compile on Android API 8, with
>>> the NDK r10c:
>>>
>>> CC getloadavg.o
>>> getloadavg.c: In function 'rpl_getloadavg':
>>> getloadavg.c:509:5: error: implicit declaration of function 'sy
Bruno Haible writes:
> Po Lu wrote:
>> The latest Gnulib getloadavg.c does not compile on Android API 8, with
>> the NDK r10c:
>>
>> CC getloadavg.o
>> getloadavg.c: In function 'rpl_getloadavg':
>> getloadavg.c:509:5: error: implicit declaration of function 'sysinfo'
>> [-Werror=implic
Po Lu wrote:
> The latest Gnulib getloadavg.c does not compile on Android API 8, with
> the NDK r10c:
>
> CC getloadavg.o
> getloadavg.c: In function 'rpl_getloadavg':
> getloadavg.c:509:5: error: implicit declaration of function 'sysinfo'
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
