This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org 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] |
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:18:50 Justin Mattock wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:55:26 Justin Mattock wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 15:30:42 Justin Mattock wrote: > >> >> I have no problems compiling the kernel. > >> >> now with the latest-glibc > >> >> I get this: > >> >> > >> >> scripts/unifdef.c:209: error: conflicting types for 'getline' > >> >> /usr/include/stdio.h:651: note: previous declaration of 'getline' was > >> >> here make[1]: *** [scripts/unifdef] Error 1 > >> >> make: *** [__headers] Error 2 > >> > > >> > umm, glibc doesnt provide unifdef. ?this looks like a problem with the > >> > kernel, not glibc. ?you should post your question to lkml. > >> > >> Thanks for the info. > >> I did post, but didn't receive much info. > >> I'm thinking I need to change my .config > >> to x86_64(but at the moment waiting to see > >> if somebody says anything with lkml > >> before I change things) > >> then I'll go from there. > >> As for different kernel's > >> 2.6.29-rc5-00289-g460c133 > >> is successful. the error is from > >> the latest git yesterday. > > > > imo, it's a bug in unifdef. ?it is declaring its own function named > > "getline" which clashes with the glibc one. ?it might depend on the > > compiler flags used (_GNU_SOURCE or something), but it's still poor taste > > i think and simpler to just change the name in the code. > > > > either way, this should be on lkml > > Cool, > thanks again for the info. > I'll look into unifdef. and also see > what lkml says when I get a chance. the lkml guys tend to be lazy sob's if you dont post a patch :) in this case, something like `sed -i 's:\<getline\>:get_line:'` on the source code might be enough. and then add a comment above the prototype that this needs to be "get_line" and not "getline" to avoid C library conflicts. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |