This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Replacing gcc's dependence on libiberty's fnmatch to gnulib's fnmatch
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh dot kulkarni at linaro dot org>, ayush goel <ayushgoel1610 at gmail dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 23:38:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replacing gcc's dependence on libiberty's fnmatch to gnulib's fnmatch
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGp8FVXDpmi_WF2EUAtV2jFX5GJctE_-mfLnORDbn9ptfkSkyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAESRpQD4RXHD6ZL3vwQc0tH7zb2NXyQpPNT8uLgH2orUVPECmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGp8FVVZiCJ3y2XXzGBpo1x5NpOAqdPzASapP=rYyv=O8oWUSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAgBjMnwPzGJd-EDgsUYfRHxOkdg=A_fBrmgdtR+OOT4gRPbMw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607292209460.24174@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAESRpQAnxvX1F4V+pt+WJ1vuqaHhCHmuudAKhEMrMbbd_FjMvg@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/30/2016 02:10 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> What about my suggestion of forcing GCC to use the gnulib functions by
> temporarily removing the system-wide functions? Would that be
> equivalent testing to building on a host that requires the libiberty
> version of a function?
I don't think that in general that's equivalent, because many of
gnulib's replacement headers will actually #include_next the original
header, and then fix some detail. Thus it's not equivalent to the
original header not existing.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves