This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: Fixincludes

From: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntwork at lightcubesolutions dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:01:49 -1000
Subject: Re: Fixincludes
References: <4FC40806.3070904@lightcubesolutions.com> <CAH6eHdQXfN+dTWG=i-mi2WS7NsWtUxmszQUgQHyhDx72gc6X1w@mail.gmail.com> <2972730427411837386@unknownmsgid> <201206022334.37713.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <4FCAB027.8090003@lightcubesolutions.com> <CAH6eHdRAHk3ROE+mHhEAqUU_NV3KYHaNTQ=7G80K7vRhKhnX+Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 June 2012 01:30, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>> After reading up further, it appears that the possibility exists that the
>> script may 'fix' things in the libc headers that we don't want or need
>> 'fixed'. I'm trying to ascertain what things the script in particular is
>> 'fixing' and which way is more technically sound in our build scenario.
>
> It's trivial to let it run and compare the fixed files to the
> originals. ?On my system with a recent glibc I still see lots of
> changes to limits.h, I assume they're not pointless and are worth
> having.

Why not push those changes to glibc?

References:
- Re: Fixincludes
  - From: Jeremy Huntwork
- Re: Fixincludes
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Fixincludes
  - From: Jeremy Huntwork
- Re: Fixincludes
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]