This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Do we think the __need_* interface is a good idea?
On 03/06/2017 12:38 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/03/2017 08:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> Zack's bits/types/*.h is a better solution. (For types from <stddef.h> I
>>> think it would be reasonable still to use bits/types/*.h, with the headers
>>> there serving to wrap the GCC header with __need_* defined.)
>>
>> Thanks. I've followed up with upstream linux kernel making a suggestion
>> to match what we do in glibc as best practice.
>
> FYI, I mean to be getting back to the bits/types/ conversions Real
> Soon Now but there's a lot of other stuff on my plate at the moment.
As a volunteer please feel free to do whatever you want with your time.
I hope my email did not come across as asking you to do anything in
particular. I was just hoping that we'd get consensus on best practice
to recommend to the upstream linux UAPI work.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.