Hi folks!
I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
comments?
Sort of like:
#ifndef _USE_LINUX
# error "Never include directly; use standard headers instead."
#endif
If you (specialy Roland) like the idea, I can send it to the Glibc lists. (and
write a patch).
--
Robert
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> comments?
This is not an issue related to the Hurd at all. If you think that this
should be done, for whatever reason, you need to talk to the glibc
maintainers.
Thank
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > comments?
>
> This is not an issue related to the Hurd at all. If you think that this
> should b
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:48:36PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > > comments?
> >
> > This is
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> comments?
There don't exist any headers in glibc, they come from
Linux.
Jeroen Dekkers
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL P
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:03:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> That's all fine, I guess, but affects other systems beside GNU/Hurd just as
> well. If headers needs to be protected against inclusion must
> be decided by whoever provides these headers. This would be glibc in your
> case.
> > > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > > comments?
> >
> > This is not an issue related to the Hurd at all. If you think that this
> > should be done, for whatever reason, you need to talk to the glibc
> > maintainers.
>
> I know. But this seriously affects porta
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:13:32PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > comments?
>
> There don't exist any headers in glibc, they come from
> Linux.
IIRC, Glibc build p
> > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > comments?
> There don't exist any headers in glibc, they come from
> Linux.
Perhaps glibc should provide its own wrappers which
would spew out warnings, but still #include the real linux headers
(I assume something from /usr/s
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:43:01PM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> > > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > > comments?
> > There don't exist any headers in glibc, they come from
> > Linux.
>
> Perhaps glibc should provide its own wrappers which
> would spew out warnings
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:39:18PM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
>
> Same problem for BSD porters. This is _really_ annoying for every
> non-Linux porter/maintainer out there. I'd strongly support such
> a move; perhaps starting with a deprecation #warn-ing, and later
> changing this to a hard #error.
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:36:54PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Of course. I just wanted to check with you people to see what the general
> opinion is.
The general opinion about linux header files can not be found on the Hurd
development list.
> Since it sounds fine to you, I'll post to Glibc ma
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:35:31PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:13:32PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:05:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > > comments?
> >
> > There don'
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:45:16PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'll raise the issue on Glibc mailing lists, and CC bug-hurd. Please make
> sure you people get to participate.
Why CC bug-hurd? This has nothing at all to do with the Hurd. It doesn't
affect us at all what the linux headers contai
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:45:16PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I'll raise the issue on Glibc mailing lists, and CC bug-hurd. Please make
> > sure you people get to participate.
>
> Why CC bug-hurd? This has nothing at all to
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:43:01PM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> > > I think we should disallow direct inclusion of in Glibc, any
> > > comments?
> > There don't exist any headers in glibc, they come from
> > Linux.
>
> Perhaps glibc should provide its own wrappers which
> would spew out warnings
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> This is just too much of a burden for little gain. Everybody who uses
> headers in general applications doesn't know what he is
> doing. They will just #define USE_LINUX or whatever to get rid of the
> warning/error. The real sol
Such header changes are just never going to happen, for many reasons. But
accept it. The way to move forward is to look for other solutions to help
people avoid writing needless implementation dependencies into their
packages. One straightforward idea is a tool to examine the header use in
sourc
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why CC bug-hurd? This has nothing at all to do with the Hurd. It doesn't
> > affect us at all what the linux headers contain, so please don't give a
> > wrong impression.
>
> I believe you're not looking at it from the perspective of a porter who
>
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 12:21:14AM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't debian-hurd for porting issues?
debian-hurd is for debian issues, but maybe I was wrong at posting here and
it should be in bug-hurd (too late to change that now, though).
> I just don't unders
> Are you willing to do reasonable discussion, or is this just going to be a
> claim without justification?
I'm giving you a very accurate prediction, and being lazy about explaining
the responses I know you will get if you ask for it. Feel free to
experience it for yourself if you don't want to
The GCC spec looks fine to me. The initialization and finalization code
that makes things happen is in libc, so that's where your problem is.
gcrt[01].o makes sure that __gmon_start__ gets called (libc/csu/gmon-start.c).
That initializer function calls __monstartup to start profiling and uses
ate
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Here's my opinion, not that I was asked. On my Linux systems, both of
them running the same distribution, GLIBC contains the current
libraries, and C headers for building things. And the Linux system
headers, come from the kernel. Typically there is a symlink which
points
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:54:43PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, Glibc build process takes them from specified location and installs them
> > in /usr/include/linux/.
> >
> > So there's room to apply some patches.
>
> No they don't. Some distribution put those headers in a package ca
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:10:21PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Such header changes are just never going to happen, for many reasons. But
> accept it.
Are you willing to do reasonable discussion, or is this just going to be a
claim without justification?
> The way to move forward is to look fo
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:29:50PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Are you willing to do reasonable discussion, or is this just going to be a
> > claim without justification?
>
> I'm giving you a very accurate prediction, and being lazy about explaining
> the responses I know you will get if you
26 matches
Mail list logo
