Re: [9front] [Patch] APE changes (2019 Lufia patches)

[ori@eigenstate.org]

Quoth ori@eigenstate.org:
> Quoth bsdsm@sdf.org:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This patch is a pared down version of the changes that Lufia made back in
> > 2019; the essential changes from 'add funcs and types to APE' and all of
> > 'add #include_next directive'. An unmodified diff of the former pull
> > request can be found here[1] for comparison.
> > 
> > This has only been tested on an amd64 build. Works cleanly with tree as of
> > Feb 20, 2021 changes.
> > 
> > 
> > [1]: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/lufia/plan9/pull/5.diff
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > diff -r bfe93397b157 386/include/ape/_apetypes.h
> > --- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
> > +++ b/386/include/ape/_apetypes.h	Fri Feb 12 10:59:32 2021 -0700
> > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > +#if !defined(__BYTE_ORDER) && defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN)
> > +#define	__BYTE_ORDER	__LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if !defined(BYTE_ORDER) && defined(LITTLE_ENDIAN)
> > +#define	BYTE_ORDER	LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif
> > diff -r bfe93397b157 amd64/include/ape/_apetypes.h
> > --- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
> > +++ b/amd64/include/ape/_apetypes.h	Fri Feb 12 10:59:32 2021 -0700
> > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> > +#ifndef _BITS64
> > +#define _BITS64
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if !defined(__BYTE_ORDER) && defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN)
> > +#define	__BYTE_ORDER	__LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if !defined(BYTE_ORDER) && defined(LITTLE_ENDIAN)
> > +#define	BYTE_ORDER	LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif
> 
> We'd need these for all the other archs that we
> support, otherwise ape will fail to build on
> anything other than 386 and amd64.
> 
> > +#endif
> > diff -r bfe93397b157 sys/include/ape/pthread.h
> 
> Would you be willing to split the pthread changes
> out? it's a lot of tricky code, and it's rather
> hard to review.
> 
> Same for the cpp include_next, which I'd rather
> not commit if we can get away with it (ie, what
> software is relying on that nonstandard extension,
> and is it a big change to fix the software, and
> maybe even upstream the change?)
> 

And, again -- can you let me know what programs this
enables, and whether they've been tested with this
patch on 9front?