On 21/11/2015 20:50, Paul Fertser wrote:
> Hello,
>
> John Crispin writes:
>> // is c++
>>
>> /* this is the c version */
>
> Strictly speaking, // is a valid way to add one-line comments since C99.
>
ok, let me be more precise. the code style of procd forbids this ;)
___
Hello,
John Crispin writes:
> // is c++
>
> /* this is the c version */
Strictly speaking, // is a valid way to add one-line comments since C99.
--
Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software!
mailto:fercer...@gmail.com
__
On 21/11/2015 12:06, Etienne Champetier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first sorry, i've forgot to add the ticket reference
> https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/20785
>
> also full disclore, I'm only writing C for OpenWrt
> so is there a compilation flag to disable C++,
> or can you be more specific on what C++
Hi,
first sorry, i've forgot to add the ticket reference
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/20785
also full disclore, I'm only writing C for OpenWrt
so is there a compilation flag to disable C++,
or can you be more specific on what C++ ism i'm using ?
2015-11-21 9:08 GMT+01:00 John Crispin :
>
>
>
On 21/11/2015 00:05, Etienne CHAMPETIER wrote:
> Using ldd (via popen()) is a hack, but it's simpler (and working)
indeed
> we have 3 libc and many archs, too many ways to resolve .so
where does it break ?
> Current code:
> -do not parse the intepreter (PT_INTERP) part of the elf
why should i
Hi,
can you please convert this to c code ? we dont like c++ patterns
John
On 21/11/2015 00:05, Etienne CHAMPETIER wrote:
> Using ldd (via popen()) is a hack, but it's simpler (and working)
> we have 3 libc and many archs, too many ways to resolve .so
>
> Current code:
> -do not parse t
Using ldd (via popen()) is a hack, but it's simpler (and working)
we have 3 libc and many archs, too many ways to resolve .so
Current code:
-do not parse the intepreter (PT_INTERP) part of the elf
-do not get the library path priority right (/lib64 is before /lib,
musl take the libs in /lib even o
