Do we think the __need_* interface is a good idea?

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> Joseph,
> 
> In the upstream kernel their signal.h has exactly the same
> issues that ours does, for example they need a definition of size_t:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/25/191
> 
> I mention here how we solve this:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/364
> 
> Is our use of special "hooks" like __need_size_t something we want
> to keep using or has someone thought of a better solution?

Zack's bits/types/*.h is a better solution.  (For types from <stddef.h> I 
think it would be reasonable still to use bits/types/*.h, with the headers 
there serving to wrap the GCC header with __need_* defined.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com