On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:05:39PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> I can't find any rational argument against test-compiling a piece of code in
> that negatively loaded emotional outburst you referred to.
you still have to do the hard work and figure out the right way to
explain to the autocrap tools what you are trying to do and how to do
it
Compiling a test program is a lazy work around that fails to address
real issues. In this case, the problem is that sometimes uClibc omits
clock_nanosleep.
The real solution is to figure out why, and fix that in uClibc. A
second, less optimal solution would be to figure out how uClibc's
feature test macros advertise presence of clock_nanosleep (if indeed
they do that) and use those macros in missing.h.
> I don't have the time and resources to investigate this deeper.
Right, and that is the point. It is "hard work" to find a proper
solution. Blindly slapping on autotools or similar is a cop-out.
Thanks,
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
