[patch] avoid c99 declaration

Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail.com
Sat Jul 31 20:22:35 UTC 2010


On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
<carmelo.amoroso at st.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/28/2010 7:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday, June 21, 2010 06:39:12 Gianluigi Tiesi wrote:
>>> While compiling uClibc inside openwrt build system I have somehow the
>>> compiler
>>> without -std=c99 flash (since adding id causes me some troubles)
>>
>> why dont we fix uClibc to use c99 then ?  if your toolchain is new enough to
>> support TLS as NPTL requires, then it's new enough to support c99 features.
>> we shouldnt go throwing frivolous patches at the NPTL code when we're merely
>> importing it from glibc.  realistically, we dont have the man power to
>> maintain a fork which means we need to be sticking as lose to glibc as
>> possible here.
>> -mike
>>
>
> I definitely agree with Mike. Even if changes are dummy, merging effort
> with updated version of NPTL/glibc could be too huge.

yes I agree. I proposed to make C99 a requirement for uclibc.

>
> Carmelo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> uClibc mailing list
>> uClibc at uclibc.org
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxP0EMACgkQoRq/3BrK1s8TTACeJeWGCtPIvwWlSeKJ7xLevXES
> gpUAoKZ7uMjQEKu/GJGqiGn1jrqRCeHm
> =npKt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>


More information about the uClibc mailing list