fixincludes for glibc 'inline' non-C99 conformance

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:08:18AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I also strongly deprecate the lack of cooperation seen lately between GCC 
> and GLIBC on both sides, both patches going in to GCC causing GLIBC 
> breakage known in advance without a plan for fixing it and GLIBC 
> developers failing to review for months patches needed for GCC.  I think 
> the GNU project needs to consider how to move to cooperation so that 
> developers of both these components of the GNU system bear in mind and act 
> in accordance with responsibilities to the other component.

To agree with Joseph, less politely:

I am pretty seriously annoyed that it is considered acceptable to
commit patches to the GNU Compiler that break the GNU C Library, and
then push blame around.  I otherwise agree with Mike Stump's recent
posting on getting the world fixed, but I don't think it's valid to
disclaim responsibility for the rest of the GNU project.  Much of the
point of the GNU project is that it cooperates with itself.

For full disclosure, I will note that this didn't break Geoff's daily
builds, but did break mine; but since I admit I don't have the time to
fix it, I'm just going to stop using HEAD until something slightly more
like a consensus emerges.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery