Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen schrieb: > Adam Jackson <a...@nwnk.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 02:14 +0100, Stephan Raue wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> can anyone fix compiling of xrandr against uClibc (reported in >>> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12958) >>> >>> see also: >>> http://osdir.com/ml/linux.lfs.hardened/2008-04/msg00009.html >>> http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-February/000281.html >>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/197013 >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/hlfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org/msg02003.html >> Pretty sure this is a uclibc header bug. glibc has exactly the same >> definitions in <bits/sched.h> and does not have this problem. Which I >> already said the last time this was brought up: >> >> http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-March/000365.html >> >> - ajax > > If you think that it is a bug in the uclibc headers to declare the > clone() function at all, your argument is valid. However, I think the > comment in the bug ("why cant this symbol get renamed so that things > compile?") is also valid (regardless of who is "at fault"). Renaming > the enum value to avoid the potential conflict may be the better option > anyway... > > And I don't think glibc's behaviour is a normative reference :) (If > someone could find a specification that clearly says whether it is > disallowed to declare clone(), that would be nice...) >
I have no clue where clone is coming but you may like to know: glibc/linux also has a syscall called clone, who is that handled ? re, wh _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg