This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't build libnsl for new ABIs
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:12:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't build libnsl for new ABIs
- References: <mvmlg85ajf8.fsf@suse.de>
* Andreas Schwab:
> diff --git a/Makeconfig b/Makeconfig
> index a9e50e5b60..fbcf69e7c2 100644
> --- a/Makeconfig
> +++ b/Makeconfig
I don't feel competent to review this changes, but I trust your
expertise.
> diff --git a/scripts/haveversions.awk b/scripts/haveversions.awk
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..aecfcc7eef
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/scripts/haveversions.awk
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +# This Script read the contents of Versions.all and outputs a definition
> +# of variable have-VERSION for each symbol version VERSION which is
> +# defined.
“This script reads”
Could you add something how this is to be used? I see you used ifndef,
which isn't what we'd use in C sources, but then make doesn't have an
equivalent of -Wundef. Maybe something like this?
# The have-VERSION variables can be used to check that a port supports a
# particular symbol version in makefiles. A test for a compatibility
# symbol which was superseded with a GLIBC_2.15 version could be tested
# like this:
#
# ifdef HAVE-GLIBC_2.14
# tests += tst-spawn4-compat
# endif # HAVE-GLIBC_2.14
#
# (NB: GLIBC_2.14 is the symbol version that immediately precedes
# GLIBC_2.15.)
> +
> +NF == 1 && $1 != "}" {
> + haveversion[$1] = 1
> +}
> +END {
> + for (i in haveversion)
> + printf "have-%s = 1\n", i
Should this be:
+ printf "have-%s = yes\n", i
? I think we use "no" in other places.
Thanks,
Florian