This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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: [PATCH 17/19] Provide default definition for IS_IN when _LIBC is not defined

From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:17:48 +0530
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] Provide default definition for IS_IN when _LIBC is not defined
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1408618663-2281-1-git-send-email-siddhesh at redhat dot com> <1408618663-2281-18-git-send-email-siddhesh at redhat dot com> <20140822193854 dot 3020C2C398C at topped-with-meat dot com>

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:38:54PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Please explain this more.  There must be on appearances of IS_IN or
> anything like that in actual installed headers.  So I guess you are
> talking about include/ wrappers for headers that will be installed.
> But still I don't understand under what conditions any of this code
> is used where _LIBC is not defined.  Is it just in tests?

This patch is wrong; I forgot to mention it here.  I only ought to
have made the change in the include wrappers and not the installed
bits since the latter would break conformance tests.  This is only
needed in tests.  I'll fix this up too.

Siddhesh

Attachment: pgpJIy8SkqbXx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

References:
- [PATCH 00/19] Fix -Wundef warning in SHLIB_COMPAT
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar
- [PATCH 17/19] Provide default definition for IS_IN when _LIBC is not defined
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [PATCH 17/19] Provide default definition for IS_IN when _LIBC is not defined
  - From: Roland McGrath

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