On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/28/2010 7:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Monday, June 21, 2010 06:39:12 Gianluigi Tiesi wrote: >>> While compiling uClibc inside openwrt build system I have somehow the >>> compiler >>> without -std=c99 flash (since adding id causes me some troubles) >> >> why dont we fix uClibc to use c99 then ? if your toolchain is new enough to >> support TLS as NPTL requires, then it's new enough to support c99 features. >> we shouldnt go throwing frivolous patches at the NPTL code when we're merely >> importing it from glibc. realistically, we dont have the man power to >> maintain a fork which means we need to be sticking as lose to glibc as >> possible here. >> -mike >> > > I definitely agree with Mike. Even if changes are dummy, merging effort > with updated version of NPTL/glibc could be too huge.
yes I agree. I proposed to make C99 a requirement for uclibc. > > Carmelo >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> uClibc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxP0EMACgkQoRq/3BrK1s8TTACeJeWGCtPIvwWlSeKJ7xLevXES > gpUAoKZ7uMjQEKu/GJGqiGn1jrqRCeHm > =npKt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > uClibc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
