Re: confused with compiling latest libc and latest kernel

[Justin Mattock <justinmattock at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:18:50 Justin Mattock wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:55:26 Justin Mattock wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 15:30:42 Justin Mattock wrote:
>> >> >> I have no problems compiling the kernel.
>> >> >> now with the latest-glibc
>> >> >> I get this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> scripts/unifdef.c:209: error: conflicting types for 'getline'
>> >> >> /usr/include/stdio.h:651: note: previous declaration of 'getline' was
>> >> >> here make[1]: *** [scripts/unifdef] Error 1
>> >> >> make: *** [__headers] Error 2
>> >> >
>> >> > umm, glibc doesnt provide unifdef. ?this looks like a problem with the
>> >> > kernel, not glibc. ?you should post your question to lkml.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the info.
>> >> I did post, but didn't receive much info.
>> >> I'm thinking I need to change my .config
>> >> to x86_64(but at the moment waiting to see
>> >> if somebody says anything with lkml
>> >> before I change things)
>> >> then I'll go from there.
>> >> As for different kernel's
>> >> 2.6.29-rc5-00289-g460c133
>> >> is successful. the error is from
>> >> the latest git yesterday.
>> >
>> > imo, it's a bug in unifdef. ?it is declaring its own function named
>> > "getline" which clashes with the glibc one. ?it might depend on the
>> > compiler flags used (_GNU_SOURCE or something), but it's still poor taste
>> > i think and simpler to just change the name in the code.
>> >
>> > either way, this should be on lkml
>>
>> Cool,
>> thanks again for the info.
>> I'll look into unifdef. and also see
>> what lkml says when I get a chance.
>
> the lkml guys tend to be lazy sob's if you dont post a patch :)
>
> in this case, something like `sed -i 's:\<getline\>:get_line:'` on the source
> code might be enough. ?and then add a comment above the prototype that this
> needs to be "get_line" and not "getline" to avoid C library conflicts.
> -mike
>

Alright changed getline to get_line
and everything compiled.
thanks for that.
(I've never created a patch before)
so hopefully they like it.


-- 
Justin P. Mattock