This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH roland/mman-linux] Move bits/mman-linux.h out of sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, "GNU C. Library" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:31:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH roland/mman-linux] Move bits/mman-linux.h out of sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140314200309 dot 83A247449E at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 03/14/2014 04:03 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm working on a non-Linux port (NaCl) that uses the Linux bits for various
> things, including the bits/mman.h bits. It reduces duplication if I can
> just use bits/mman-linux.h, but as things stand that file is only available
> in Linux configurations.
>
> It's a bit nonobvious that sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/Makefile (and soon
> sysdeps/nacl/Makefile) has to add bits/mman-linux.h to sysdep_headers
> though the header itself is outside of sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/. But I
> think that wrinkle is preferable to winding up with manual duplication.
> If people think this is a bad idea, I can always do something more hokey
> in the NaCl port to copy the source file during the build or something.
>
> Opinions?
I'm happy with such a change. A perfectly structured set of headers is the
enemy of the good. I think reducing duplication of these constants is a good
thing.
Every other way I can think of organizing the header, include_next, or
something else, just looks uglier than moving the header. So your solution
seems like the most reasonable.
On request. Add enough comments that we know why this file is there so
someone reading either Makefile's or the header itself knows why it's
not where it should be.
Cheers,
Carlos.