From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/584 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Missing header(s) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:17:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20120220191703.GU146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120220092459.23c85483.idunham@lavabit.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329765464 28990 80.91.229.3 (20 Feb 2012 19:17:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:17:44 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-585-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Feb 20 20:17:42 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RzYk0-0006aD-Iy for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:17:40 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28223 invoked by uid 550); 20 Feb 2012 19:17:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28215 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2012 19:17:39 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120220092459.23c85483.idunham@lavabit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:584 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:24:59AM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote: > ar.h is a header that defines struct ar_hdr and several components. Yeah, I've gotten this report before and just haven't gotten around to adding it. I have no objection to adding ar.h though. > Needed for at least GNU make-3.81 (I'm sticking with the last GPL2+ > version, myself). Doesn't 3.81 already have some important bugs you need to patch anyway? If so you could add ar.h at the same time. This won't be needed for musl once I get ar.h added, but it would make the resulting build more portable anyway. > By the way, I've put together a sys/cdefs.h header that gets a lot > of stuff to compile; ~95% of it is backwards-compatability macros. > If you want, I can submit it; I'd add I wouldn't mind seeing it, and as long as it's clean I'll probably add it... > #include'ing is semi-portable, though (NetBSD, GNU > #libc)--and the only option if you need to support some old systems > #as well as c99. I'm confused how it would be necessary for this. The __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ macros give you all you need to make the appropriate definitions yourself if you really need to support pre-standardized C. If you just need to support C89 and C99, you'd rarely have to test anything anyway; just use the intersection of the 2 languages (which is equivalent to C89, except that you can't use C99 keywords like inline, restrict, _Bool, etc.). As such, I still see apps that include sys/cdefs.h as buggy. Rich