This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntwork at lightcubesolutions dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:34:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: Fixincludes
- References: <4FC40806.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAH6eHdQXfN+dTWG=i-mi2WS7NsWtUxmszQUgQHyhDx72gc6X1w@mail.gmail.com> <2972730427411837386@unknownmsgid>
> OK, thanks for this reply. For a situation when the only available
> headers are the sanitized Linux headers and those from recent glibc
> (or some other modern libc) am I correct in assuming that this script
> is unnecessary and could, conceivably alter something that shouldn't
> be altered?
What are you after, exactly? Even on modern OSes, there might be glitches or
small incompatibilities that woud need to be fixed in order for GCC to work
properly, and fixincludes is the tried and proven tool to do that. It is
designed to modify only what needs to be modified, but bugs cannot of course
be ruled out like in any other piece of code.