Re: [musl] [PATCH v2] riscv64: correct struct __ucontext name

[Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 10:06:49 AM MST Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 04:55:39PM +0000, Ariadne Conill wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Sunday, December 6, 2020 5:49:25 AM MST Drew DeVault wrote:
> > > On Sun Dec 6, 2020 at 3:51 AM EST, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > > * Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> [2020-12-05 18:10:06 +0000]:
> > > > > This makes it consistent with other architectures and fixes some
> > > > > issues
> > > > > with downstream software.
> > > > 
> > > > which software?
> > > > 
> > > > glibc uses struct ucontext_t too and user code should use ucontext_t
> > > > without struct.
> > 
> > Some glibc architecture ports use the struct __ucontext and even struct
> > ucontext names, or at least did in the past.
> > 
> > > libucontext, which does use ucontext_t.
> > > 
> > > In fact, the issue was more related to the type conflict with
> > > ucontext.h, which declared struct __ucontext in the scope of its
> > > function declarations due to the naming mismatch.
> > 
> > glibc uses the POSIX 2004 standardized ucontext_t type in its public
> > definitions.  I believe musl should do the same.
> 
> This produces a compile-time error is ucontext.h is included without
> the right feature test macros, since signal.h will not have defined
> ucontext_t in that case. That's why the public declarations must use
> the struct tag.

Bummer.  In that case, I suggest musl use the same struct tag consistently. It 
should probably be struct ucontext_t for consistency with glibc.

Ariadne