This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Top-level bits/ vs sysdeps/generic/bits/
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:10:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: Top-level bits/ vs sysdeps/generic/bits/
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5722BB56 dot 3010700 at panix dot com> <20160505041514 dot GR26300 at vapier dot lan> <5731D9E2 dot 6070307 at panix dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1605101420040 dot 22943 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 05/10/2016 10:24 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2016, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> top-level module directories. I'm guessing that the idea was eventually
>> to dispose of sysdeps/generic altogether (which I would certainly
>> support) and that there isn't supposed to be a sysdeps/generic/bits anymore.
> I'm not sure how disposing of sysdeps/generic would work in the case of a
> header (non-installed, overridden by some configurations) that's used by
> multiple subdirectories. That's most cases of files in sysdeps/generic
> (there are also some installed headers there, and some .c files, and
> default ABI test baselines), and you'd need to have another place to put
> them (like top-level bits/ is for bits/ headers).
Without having looked into it at all, couldn't they go in include/?
(in principle - I'm aware that there are any number of reasons why this
won't work right now)