This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 06/13] Installed header hygiene (BZ#20366): Macros used in #if without checking whether they are defined.

On 09/21/2016 02:05 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> At a high level I would expect _LIBC to always be defined as either 0 or 1.
> _LIBC is effectively with external code, because it's used (with #if) in 
> code shared by gnulib.  So we can't change its semantics like that; 
> defining to 0 with installed glibc would break building gnulib.
Isn't that just a normal coordination issue with gnulib?

Changes in GCC routinely break building glibc, either intentional or

In this case there would be a dependency between this glibc version
and the usable versions of gnulib which could be built with that glibc?

I agree that such gratuitous breakage for a weak reason like installed
header hygiene would be a bad idea.

However, I don't think we should avoid the change, but rather coordinate
with gnulib if we ever need it. 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]