On Tuesday 24 January 2012 03:35:21 [email protected] wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 23 January 2012 13:26:44 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > > I'm wondering if we do still need to have in uclibc a version of > > > kernel_types.h, any idea ? > > > > the alternative is ... ? relying on linux/types.h ? if we don't care > > about things older than like linux-2.6.18, then we prob can drop > > kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets. > > For the record, I happen to care. Compiling for Linux 2.4.19.
considering how quick you responded, i suspect you're not the only one. so we'll continue to live with bits/kernel_types.h. i don't think it's that big of a deal since you only implement it once per arch (by basically copying from the kernel where you need to set this up already) and then leave it alone. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
