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 v2 5/5] Post-cleanup 2: minimize _G_config.h.

On 06/02/2018 18:17, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Adhemerval Zanella
> <> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 21:35, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> Nearly everything in _G_config.h is either junk or more appropriately
>>> defined elsewhere:
> ...
>> LGTM in general with just _IO_HAVE_ST_BLKSIZE suggestion below.
> ...
>>> +#if defined _STATBUF_ST_BLKSIZE
>>>        if (st.st_blksize > 0 && st.st_blksize < _IO_BUFSIZ)
>>>       size = st.st_blksize;
>>>  #endif
>> I think it is more logical to have _IO_HAVE_ST_BLKSIZE defined as 0
>> on generic bits/stat.h and 1 for Linux bits/stat.h (which is also
>> the way to we are aiming to handle these kind of macros).
> _STATBUF_ST_BLKSIZE, with #undef/1 semantics, has been part of our
> sys/stat.h for a long time; it doesn't have a _lot_ of external users,
> but it has a few (see
> I am
> reluctant to complicate this patchset by messing with it.  Is this a
> hard objection?

I do not think this is a patch blocker.

>>> +/* Setting this macro to 1 enables the use of the _vtable_offset bias
>>> +   in _IO_JUMPS_FUNCS, below.  This is only needed for new-format
>>> +   _IO_FILE in libc that must support old binaries (see oldfileops.c).  */
>> Ok, this was indeed a convoluted check (I had to write it down to realize
>> _G_IO_NO_BACKWARD_COMPAT here is superflous).
> I want to thank Joseph for insisting on the "no changes to installed
> stripped libraries" standard for this patchset; I got this change
> wrong initially and I'm not sure I would have noticed that it was
> wrong if I wasn't being suspicious of any change to the generated code.
> zw

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