On Monday 05 April 2010 16:50:13 Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Monday 05 April 2010 20:24, Rob Landley wrote: > > And I'm trying to figure out if this is a config issue or due to: > > > > libc_hidden_def(fcntl64) > > > > In libc/sysdeps/linux/common/__syscall_fcntl64.c. (Why "hidden"? What's > > the point in hiding it? It's a libc export, right?) > > I had similar feelings. I tried to improve include/libc-symbols.h > comments and structure so that it is not as confusing as it was. > > I also removed massive amounts of libc_hidden_proto's in .c files. > (Need to do the same for libm, libutil etc.) > > There are a lot of places in uclibc which need cleaning up. > > Example: just now, I noticed "#undef _LIBC" statements in a few files. > That's really not how it supposed to be. Compiling libc files > as if they are not part of libc? That sounds paranoid, and bound > to create problems. It already did: > > libc/misc/fnmatch/fnmatch.c > =========================== > > /* unistd.h must be included with _LIBC defined: we need smallint */ > #include <unistd.h> > #include <features.h> > #ifdef __UCLIBC__ > # undef _LIBC > > At the very least, whoever added #ifdef __UCLIBC__ # undef _LIBC block > had to explain why he did it.
Probably a better list to cc: this conversation to than the busybox one. :) I'm vaguely poking at .31 trying to make it work with my build, but I've got a half-dozen things competing with it for attention tonight... Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
