Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 02:37 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > > > > On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: > >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > >>> and defines corresponding

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 02:37 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > > > > On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: > >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > >>> and defines corresponding

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:29 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > In glibc right now we support including linux or glibc header files first, > and this has always been a requirement from the start. This requirement > dictates > that the kernel know which libc it's being used with so it can tailor > coordination.

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:29 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > In glibc right now we support including linux or glibc header files first, > and this has always been a requirement from the start. This requirement > dictates > that the kernel know which libc it's being used with so it can tailor > coordination.

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:29:00AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 02:45 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the > >> documented way the model works). With this patch any

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:29:00AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 02:45 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the > >> documented way the model works). With this patch any

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/09/2017 01:14 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: the other way (linux header included first) is problematic because linux headers don't follow all the standards the libc follows, they violate namespace rules in their struct definitions, so the libc definitions are necessarily incompatible with them

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/09/2017 01:14 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: the other way (linux header included first) is problematic because linux headers don't follow all the standards the libc follows, they violate namespace rules in their struct definitions, so the libc definitions are necessarily incompatible with them

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:45 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the >> documented way the model works). With this patch any included linux kernel >> header that also includes libc-compat.h would

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:45 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the >> documented way the model works). With this patch any included linux kernel >> header that also includes libc-compat.h would

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:37 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >>> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 04/25/2017 02:37 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >>> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the > documented way the model works). With this patch any included linux kernel > header that also includes libc-compat.h would immediately define all > the __UAPI_DEF_* constants

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 05:39 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Any header needing compat with a libc includes libc-compat.h (per the > documented way the model works). With this patch any included linux kernel > header that also includes libc-compat.h would immediately define all > the __UAPI_DEF_* constants

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in >> uapi headers to prevent definition of

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 01:46 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in >> uapi headers to prevent definition of

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:51:29PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 03/08/2017 07:14 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > * Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: > >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > >>> fixes the following compiler errors when is included > >>>

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:51:29PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 03/08/2017 07:14 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > * Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: > >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > >>> fixes the following compiler errors when is included > >>> after musl : > >>> >

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 07:14 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: >>> fixes the following compiler errors when is included >>> after musl : >>> >>> ./linux/in6.h:32:8: error: redefinition of 'struct

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 07:14 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: >>> fixes the following compiler errors when is included >>> after musl : >>> >>> ./linux/in6.h:32:8: error: redefinition of 'struct in6_addr' >>>

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

* Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: > On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > > fixes the following compiler errors when is included > > after musl : > > > > ./linux/in6.h:32:8: error: redefinition of 'struct in6_addr' > > ./linux/in6.h:49:8: error:

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

* Carlos O'Donell [2017-03-08 10:53:00 -0500]: > On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > > fixes the following compiler errors when is included > > after musl : > > > > ./linux/in6.h:32:8: error: redefinition of 'struct in6_addr' > > ./linux/in6.h:49:8: error: redefinition of 'struct

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >>> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: >>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >>> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 07:46 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in >> uapi headers to prevent definition of

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 07:46 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: >> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, >> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in >> uapi headers to prevent definition of

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > > uapi headers to prevent definition

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > > uapi headers to prevent definition

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants. > There is no such detection for

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote: > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants. > There is no such detection for

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants. > There is no such

Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to opt out of uapi definitions

On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 07:08 -0500, Felix Janda wrote: > Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers, > and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in > uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants. > There is no such