Re: [PATCH 1/4] Avoid duplication of _CLOEXEC and _NONBLOCK values

[Guy Martin <gmsoft at tuxicoman dot be>]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:47:00 +0000 (UTC)
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> 
> Putting a file directly in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/socket.h in
> ports also seems rather fragile; it causes the installed headers to
> depend on whether the ports add-on is used or not, and for the sake
> of multilib configurations such as a Power Architecture compiler
> supporting both hard-float (libc) and soft-float (ports) libraries
> it's desirable to avoid such differences within the same target
> architecture even when it has both libc and ports variants.  As such,
> I don't think it makes sense to try to change this without libc
> buy-in (the same issue of different O_* values affects SPARC, it's
> not just a ports issue).
> 

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what to do at this point.
I understand that including fcntl.h is not an option. I can definitely
change that.
However without having generic bit/socket.h and sys/*.h in libc that
would include the new file in bits, there is nothing that can be done in
ports and as you said, libc doesn't want such change.

Is there a point to keep trying to get this cleanup integrated ?
I feel like there is no feasible solution at this point either in libc
or ports.
I don't mind spending some more time to come up with a cleaner
patch but it would be nice to know exactly what solution would be
accepted if any.

If this is not feasible, then I'll resubmit a cleaned up version of the
original fix for _CLOEXEC and _NONBLOCK on hppa :
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2010-08/msg00001.html

Please let me know what's the best approach.

Regards,
  Guy