On Saturday, July 31, 2010 16:22:35 Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > 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. > > > > 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.
i'm not necessarily set on all of uClibc, but certainly any part that utilizes TLS. i guess we could enable -std=gnu99 in the build and see who (if any) complains. if no one has anything else, i'll revert the changes in question and add - std=gnu99. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
