From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2166 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add basic sys/cdefs.h found on most unix Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:11:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20121021001118.GW254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1350764145-10305-1-git-send-email-awg@embtoolkit.org> <1350764145-10305-3-git-send-email-awg@embtoolkit.org> <20121020161841.ef32cdd2.idunham@lavabit.com> <5083360C.3020602@embtoolkit.org> <20121020233852.GS254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <50833E3B.1070003@embtoolkit.org> 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: ger.gmane.org 1350778799 29947 80.91.229.3 (21 Oct 2012 00:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 00:19:59 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2167-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 21 02:20:07 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 1TPjGx-000486-Nk for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:20:07 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 19953 invoked by uid 550); 21 Oct 2012 00:20:00 -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 19945 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2012 00:20:00 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50833E3B.1070003@embtoolkit.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2166 Archived-At: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:13:47AM +0200, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote: > On 10/21/2012 01:38 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:38:52AM +0200, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote: > >>On 10/21/2012 01:18 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > >>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:15:43 +0200 > >>>Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye wrote: > >>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye > >>>>--- > >>>> include/sys/cdefs.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > >>>> create mode 100644 include/sys/cdefs.h > >>>I'm pretty sure that the last three times sys/cdefs.h was proposed, > >>>it was rejected. > >>Unfortunately many packages (wrongly?) use to rely on macros defined there, > >I've found it's really very few; an equivalent sys/cdefs.h does not > >exist on most systems. It was never intended for use by applications; > >it's an internal part of glibc (and perhaps also some BSDs?) used for > >handling backwardsness like pre-ANSI C compilers (abstracting const > >away as __const, or abstracting away prototypes with __P()) and > >optional use of GCC-specific features. > > But applications borrowed from systems internal and ported to others > systems tend to use these macros (libtirpc, libbsd come in mind). > Major BSD systems have it (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, PCBSD), it not > a reason to have it on linux systems but it helps/simplifies packages porting > from these OS. As it stands, these libraries/apps won't work anywhere but GNU/Linux (by "GNU/" I mean glibc-based) or BSD. If the offending code is removed and replaced with what should be there, they'd be a lot more portable. So I would not say sys/cdefs.h aids in porting them; I'd say its presence gives these libs/apps a way to be lazy and non-portable... > >For things like 'extern "C"', there's no reason to use sys/cdefs.h; > >the just writing the code it expands to inline is much more > >clear/informative and provides better performance as a nice side > >effect. > > > >>sometimes indirectly via . > >I don't see what you mean by this. > > some applications use to get macros defined in > as on glibc, eglibc, uClibc have a #include Both of these usages are incorrect and could easily be fixed (both are implementation-internal headers). Rich