On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:32:57PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
This attribute_hidden should not be resurrected.
Is this because uClibc convention is to specify this only with
prototypes which is already being done.
On May 8, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Rich Felker dal...@aerifal.cx wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:32:57PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
This attribute_hidden should not be resurrected.
Is this because uClibc convention is
On 7 May 2013 07:32:20 Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
On 05/07/2013 10:02 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
This attribute_hidden should not be resurrected.
Is this because uClibc convention is to specify this only
On 6 May 2013 08:08:15 Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Ping ? Any comments on this - it fixes a real issue - across arches !
-Vineet
On 04/24/2013 03:27 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This reverts commit 91450a8a3b3112066fd6d266a6c492365c9d8d61.
There's a namespace collision for
On May 6, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
This attribute_hidden should not be resurrected.
Is this because uClibc convention is to specify this only with prototypes
which is
already being done.
is it possible to rename the conflicting functions in busy
On 05/07/2013 10:02 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
This attribute_hidden should not be resurrected.
Is this because uClibc convention is to specify this only with prototypes
which is
already being done.
is it possible to
This reverts commit 91450a8a3b3112066fd6d266a6c492365c9d8d61.
There's a namespace collision for config_{open,close,read} functions
between uClibc and Busybox. Callers in uClibc and busybox need to call
their local variants. In case of static linking, both the variants need
to be pulled in the
