On Thursday 21 February 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I understand the need to eliminate duplicate definitions, but libbb.h > already includes <stdio.h>. That's sufficient for getting BUFSIZ, yes? I > guess I could request that busybox remove the ifndef BUFSIZ declaration, > but that still leaves me wondering who is seeing the duplicate declaration > warnings that triggered the uClinux patch. > > Do other uClinux developers actually see the duplicate definition warnings? > If so, perhaps they might suggest a better fix? I don't see the warnings > (my <stdio.h> defines BUFSIZ, so the ifndef never fires), so it's hard for > me to suggest a "fix" to the busybox developers. I can't identify a fix for > something that, for me, isn't broken! The ifndef is unnecessary, but > benign.
i havent seen any complaints from glibc or uClibc developers about redefinitions -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
