The test is fixed now.
kre
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:11:53PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> I don't understand why we expose __clone() in a public header at all,
> but I understand your comments to result in the attached patch.
It is used in tests:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 06:06:19PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 16:50:14 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:45:23PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > > Shouldn't we expose __clone(2) (the real symbol in the reserved
> > > namespace)
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 16:50:14 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:45:23PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > Shouldn't we expose __clone(2) (the real symbol in the reserved
> > namespace) under _NETBSD_SOURCE and only hide clone(2) weak alias
> > under _GNU_SOURCE?
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:45:23PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> Shouldn't we expose __clone(2) (the real symbol in the reserved
> namespace) under _NETBSD_SOURCE and only hide clone(2) weak alias
> under _GNU_SOURCE? You kinda sidestep some potential issues here in
> this case b/c __clone
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 15:57:19 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:03:54PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:46:14PM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > > On Linux clone(2) is declared only for _GNU_SOURCE, which explains why
> > > linux doesn't
On 2022/08/01 23:22, Thomas Klausner wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:20:11PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
On 2022/08/01 23:13, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
The attached diff survived a complete amd64-current build. Ok to commit?
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:32:26AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2022, at 7:22 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:20:11PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> >> On 2022/08/01 23:13, Martin Husemann wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 7:22 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:20:11PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
>> On 2022/08/01 23:13, Martin Husemann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
The attached diff survived a complete amd64-current
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:20:11PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> On 2022/08/01 23:13, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > > The attached diff survived a complete amd64-current build. Ok to commit?
> >
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Can you
On 2022/08/01 23:13, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
The attached diff survived a complete amd64-current build. Ok to commit?
Looks good to me.
Can you please mention _GNU_SOURCE in clone(2)?
Thanks,
rin
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> The attached diff survived a complete amd64-current build. Ok to commit?
Looks good to me.
Martin
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:03:54PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:46:14PM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > On Linux clone(2) is declared only for _GNU_SOURCE, which explains why
> > linux doesn't run into the name clash. I gather we should follow
> > suit, as that's
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:46:14PM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Linux clone(2) is declared only for _GNU_SOURCE, which explains why
> linux doesn't run into the name clash. I gather we should follow
> suit, as that's what the apps expect.
Yes, that is the right thing to do here, especially
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 13:27:43 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:00:16 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>
> > I wonder why it's visible though, since in sched.h it's protected by
> > _NETBSD_SOURCE.
>
> Re-run that command with -E -dD and without -c and related options
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:00:16 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> I wonder why it's visible though, since in sched.h it's protected by
> _NETBSD_SOURCE.
Re-run that command with -E -dD and without -c and related options
-uwe
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 06:11:36AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> So where is the visibility restriction?
Oh, that's probably a misunderstanding on my side.
Thomas
Thomas Klausner writes:
> When compiling inkscape I found a weird compilation error that I
> traced down to clone() being in the visible namespace.
>
> https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inbox/-/issues/7378
It's too bad they are expressing 'not supported' to avoid a reasonable
change. Normally 'not
18 matches
Mail list logo