On Thursday 12 February 2009 09:11, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > Khem Raj wrote: > > On (11/02/09 18:29), Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > >> I can see three different solutions > >> > >> 1) remove the #ifdef _LIBC from within bits/uClibc_locale.h > > > > if possible this would be good. > > > >> or > >> 2)if possible, we should not sanitise this header > >> or > >> 3) change #ifdef _LIBC to something different (i.e. _LIBSTDCPP) > >> and change the libstdc++ to explicitly set this new macro before > >> including <locale> > >> > >> 3) it's almost identical to 1) and requires another extra change > >> > >> What do you guys think about ? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Carmelo > > > Or I could think to add another target in the Makefile > to install not sanitised uclibc headers for building > toolchains and what else strictly correlated to the uclibc internals, > and install on running system only the sanitised version. > Does it make more sense ?
Oh no. Yet another set of headers? I think sanitized headers should contain everything anyone needs. But if "anyone" is a patched version of gcc and patch simply uses uclibc internals (which were leaking through non-sanitized headers) instead of using public interface, that is a badly written patch. -- vda _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
