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]

Re: confused with compiling latest libc and latest kernel


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]