This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 00/13] Installed-header hygiene (BZ#20366)
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:08:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Installed-header hygiene (BZ#20366)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAKCAbMh=wcq5DzR-6cOXwKDOr4RVamn8O8_ZoBSOygLuBf2qoA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 08/29/2016 09:16 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Last release cycle I made some noises about cleaning up the installed
> >> headers---specifically, I think they should all be tested to compile
> >> as both C and C++, in a variety of modes, without having included
> >> any other headers first. There's not a lot of bugs in this area,
> >> but there's enough to get 13 patches out of them :) Mainly because
> >> I broke it up very fine for review. It would probably be best to
> >> squash it down to just one patch for landing.
> > In general can you verify that the generated code does not change after
> > each patch in the set? That would go a long way to making this truly
> > a mechanical change and it's acceptance one which cleans up the headers
> > for use with C or C++ in various modes.
> Yes, I can do that. Joseph, I know you've done similar things - do
> you have a script I can borrow, or should I come up with my own?
I don't have a script - I just strip the contents of lib64/ or lib/ in
before-and-after install trees, then compare the lib64/ or lib/
directories which should be identical after stripping (unless anything
changed line numbers in assertions, etc.).
Joseph S. Myers