On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:09:06AM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> I'm not a uclibc expert, so I can't answer under what conditions
> clock_nanosleep is defined. TYou would need to ask the uclibc authors.
And just who might they be?
If you want this to work on uClibc, then *you* could ask them!
> But I don't see any configuration options for uclibc in Buildroot,
But what about in uClibs itself?
> the
> existence of clock_nanosleep seems to be rather uclibc version and platform
> dependent.
That sounds like a promising lead...
> # ifdef __USE_POSIX199309
>
> or
>
> # if defined __USE_XOPEN2K && defined __UCLIBC_HAS_ADVANCED_REALTIME__
> # ifdef __UCLIBC_HAS_THREADS_NATIVE__
If you find the right combination of feature test macros, then this
would be acceptable for our missing.h.
> I neither understand or share your aversion to the autoconf approach. It is
> a standard and well working solution. In my view it is the best possible
> approach when running on a potentially unknown system.
That is your view. Mine is more like this:
https://varnish-cache.org/docs/4.0/phk/autocrap.html
> I've just brought my two cents in the form of a pragmatic and working
> proposal. If you have a better idea, feel free to implement it. Currently
> linuxptp seems to rather fail with uclibc.
And it is going to stay that way unless you can find a reasonable
solution that does not involve autotools or compiling test programs.
Sorry,
Richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
