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] Use __unused.0 instead of __unused for user visible struct members

Apologies, I meant to respond before, will do these ASAP.


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Carlos O'Donell <> wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 11:55 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/13/2013 06:09 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:44:58PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/2013 08:54 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:41:18PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Justin Cormack wrote:
>>>>>>>> A patch was submitted for this a while back
>>>>>>>> and did not
>>>>>>>> get a good reception from the maintainer at the time. Attached is an
>>>>>>>> updated version for current glibc head.
>>>>>>> I believe we had consensus on use of __glibc_reserved as a prefix in such
>>>>>>> cases (allowing for __glibc_reserved0, __glibc_reserved1 or
>>>>>>> __glibc_reserved_foo, __glibc_reserved_bar in cases where more than one
>>>>>>> identifier, or a more meaningful name, is needed).
>>>>>> OK, that makes sense, found part of that conversation in the archives.
>>>>>> Here is a patch (inline and attached) to convert all uses to
>>>>>> __glibc_reserved.
>>>>>> Justin
>>>>> A mechanical change that looks ok,
>>>>> It needs changelog so I generated following.
>>>> Could you please repost with the patch and final ChangeLog,
>>>> TO me, CC libc-alpha, and I'll review.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Carlos.
>>> Here
>> OK to checkin as long as you do 2 more things please:
>> 1. Email libc-ports and explain that you've made cross-machine
>>    changes and renamed __unused to __glibc_reserved and to look
>>    for any unintended breakage.
>> 2. Update
>>    and add an entry on this to explain that we use __glibc_reserved
>>    for unused structure entries and that this is done to avoid
>>    __unused which causes problems with BSD sources.
>> Thank you for following through with these changes. I've gone
>> through them all and looked for anything out of place and didn't
>> see anything. I spot checked some headers and uses matched and
>> they did.
>> I have some apprehension at changing the kernel headers because
>> it might complicate synching with the kernel headers, but these
>> headers represent a real problem in their use of `__unused` and
>> coordinating that not to break when building unmodified BSD
>> sources would be the next step. That is to say we should approach
>> the Linux kernel guys and explain the UAPI should not use __unused
>> and isntead should use __linux_unused or __uapi_unused etc. etc.
>> Therefore I'm fine with the changes.
> Ondrej,
> Ping?
> I'd like to see this go into 2.19 so we can claim our headers will
> work with BSD code that uses __unused :-)
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

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