Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] _GNU_SOURCE should be defined for building vs uClibc

2016-06-02 Thread John Crispin
On 02/06/2016 13:03, Karl Palsson wrote: > > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: >>> >>> This still doesn't work on the uclibc in openwrt-CC branch. The >>> O_PATH definitions are in asm-generic/fcntl.h, which can be >>> included via linux/fcntl.h, _GNU_SOURCE doesn't get this pulled

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] _GNU_SOURCE should be defined for building vs uClibc

2016-06-02 Thread Karl Palsson
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > > This still doesn't work on the uclibc in openwrt-CC branch. The > > O_PATH definitions are in asm-generic/fcntl.h, which can be > > included via linux/fcntl.h, _GNU_SOURCE doesn't get this pulled > > in though. > > > > I attempted to add

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] _GNU_SOURCE should be defined for building vs uClibc

2016-05-23 Thread John Crispin
On 23/05/2016 20:12, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > Hi John, > John Crispin wrote, > >> Hi, >> is it really a gnu extension or is uclibc b0rked for these symbols ? > > I think it isn't b0rked. > It was added for ARM GNU libc here under #ifdef __USE_GNU: >

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] _GNU_SOURCE should be defined for building vs uClibc

2016-05-23 Thread Felix Fietkau
On 2016-05-23 20:03, John Crispin wrote: > Hi, > is it really a gnu extension or is uclibc b0rked for these symbols ? At least O_PATH is Linux specific, so defining _GNU_SOURCE makes sense. - Felix ___ openwrt-devel mailing list

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] _GNU_SOURCE should be defined for building vs uClibc

2016-05-23 Thread John Crispin
Hi, is it really a gnu extension or is uclibc b0rked for these symbols ? John On 23/05/2016 19:57, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > In uClibc-ng O_PATH and O_DIRECTORY are only defined if _GNU_SOURCE is > defined. > > So explicitly define _GNU_SOURCE in sources that use O_PATH and > O_DIRECTORY.