On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2017 08:09 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> >>> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [needs to use musl-specific defines to be >>> upstreamable] >> >> >> I think using __GLIBC__ is sub optimal here. So this change should be >> upstreamable. >> >>> +-#if OS(DARWIN) || ((OS(FREEBSD) || defined(__GLIBC__)) && (CPU(X86) || >>> CPU(X86_64) || CPU(ARM) || CPU(ARM64) || CPU(MIPS))) >>> ++#if OS(DARWIN) || ((OS(FREEBSD) || defined(__linux__)) && (CPU(X86) || >>> CPU(X86_64) || CPU(ARM) || CPU(ARM64) || CPU(MIPS))) >> >> >> We should probably use (OS(LINUX) instead of defined(__linux__) >> and this could be upstreamed too. >> > > I'm not sure if LINUX or __linux___ is optimal either. Perhaps__GLIBC___ || > __musl___ would be better? >
musl intentionally does not have a define to identify C library, since this has historicslly made libc hide lot of trash under this carpet. most of times people assume __GLIBC__ == linux which ofcourse it not true. > > I've changed the upstream-status to Pending in the branch. > OK > Alex -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
