View Bug Activity | Format For Printing
Former discussion in libc-alpha (see http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-09/msg00153.html) suggests that it is not a problem if sys/io.h declares iopl() when the system doesn't have it. Besides, iopl() can be implemented in userland when kernel offers an interface with similar functionality (for kFreeBSD, we implemented it as a wrapper to /dev/io). If we count i386-pc-kfreebsd-gnu and x86_64-pc-kfreebsd-gnu, that'll be at least 5 platforms using a copy of the same sys/io.h file (only with cosmetical differences). I think it makes sense to move to sysdeps/i386 and sysdeps/x86_64 so that the file can be shared between them. Please consider the attached patch.
Created an attachment (id=848) move sys/io.h to sysdeps/{i386,x86_64} 2006-01-26 Robert Millan <robertmh@gnu.org> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/sys/io.h: Move to ... * sysdeps/i386/sys/io.h: ... here. * sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/sys/io.h: Remove. * sysdeps/i386/Dist: Add sys/io.h. * sysdeps/i386/Makefile: Ditto. * sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/Dist: Remove sys/io.h. * sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/Makefile: Ditto. * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/Dist: Ditto. * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/Makefile: Ditto. * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/sys/io.h: Move to ... * sysdeps/x86_64/sys/io.h: ... here. * sysdeps/x86_64/Dist: Add sys/io.h. * sysdeps/x86_64/Makefile: Ditto. * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/Dist: Remove sys/io.h. * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/Makefile: Ditto.
And use comments mentioning Linux on Hurd etc? Right... Beside, for these kind of system specific headers I have no interest in handling the fallout of changes just because some platforms wants to be slightly different.