On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 June 2012 01:30, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> >> After reading up further, it appears that the possibility exists that the >> script may 'fix' things in the libc headers that we don't want or need >> 'fixed'. I'm trying to ascertain what things the script in particular is >> 'fixing' and which way is more technically sound in our build scenario. > > It's trivial to let it run and compare the fixed files to the > originals. On my system with a recent glibc I still see lots of > changes to limits.h, I assume they're not pointless and are worth > having.
Why not push those changes to glibc?
