newlib_cv_ vs libc_cv_ autoconf cache vars prefix
Tue Feb 1 03:12:31 GMT 2022
On 31 Jan 2022 15:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 28 04:44, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the newlib/libgloss configure scripts use both libc_cv_ and newlib_cv_ as
> > their autoconf cache var prefixes. this really should be just one name.
> > i'm inclined to use newlib_cv_ rather than the more generic libc_cv_. any
> > preferences or reasons to pick one or the other ?
> > libgloss also has cache vars. i'm inclined to have it use newlib_cv_ too
> > since, as a project, it's carved out the namespace, and doesn't really need
> > its own libgloss_cv_ prefix.
> AFAICS, only six libc_cv_* and two newlib_cv_* vars exist at all, and only
> two of the libc_cv_* vars are AC_SUBST'ed and show up in the Makefile.
> Using the same prefix for all vars, it would be the smaller change to
> switch the 2 newlib_cv's to libc_cv. The result would be the same.
the reason i'm not a fan of libc_cv is that glibc uses that namespace. if you
want to setup a config.site cache for a target that builds glibc & newlib, then
it's hard to avoid namespace conflicts. but if we use newlib_cv_, then there's
no such collision.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Newlib