From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2167 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add basic sys/cdefs.h found on most unix Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:38:17 +0200 Message-ID: <508343F9.6050007@embtoolkit.org> 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> <20121021001118.GW254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1350779906 4424 80.91.229.3 (21 Oct 2012 00:38:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 00:38:26 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2168-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 21 02:38:34 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 1TPjYn-0004Vv-P1 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:38:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26516 invoked by uid 550); 21 Oct 2012 00:38:26 -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 26508 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2012 00:38:26 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 In-Reply-To: <20121021001118.GW254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2167 Archived-At: On 10/21/2012 02:11 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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... I am not the writer of these applications and going to patch old applications that are there for a while is just not an option. > >>> 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 May be it is incorrect, unfortunately it there for a while and some applications rely on it. cheers, AWG