Re: "struct user" conflicts on arm
ISO C99 says that WCHAR_MAX must be a constant expression and the
above definition is such an expression. Technically the program needs
fixing (see below though for the "standards matter but so do users"),
there is nothing wrong with a type cast and a constant value e.g.
signed -1 converted to unsigned int (ARM GNU/Linux value for wchar_t).
However, the real issue here is that it differs from x86, the most
common architecture, and differences from x86 cause porting problems.
The patch itself is insufficient because it doesn't take into account
wordsize. When we switch to the 64-bit ARM ABI it should just work.
Therefore you need to check for __WORDSIZE and *only* define a value
if we are *not* 64-bits. You don't want to define anything for the
64-bit case until the 64-bit ARM ABI is out and finalized.
Thanks for the info, I may look at this later. The ucontext namespace
pollution
seems to be a bigger issue though.
Your patch to fix ucontext namespace pollution looks good, please post
that to libc-ports for review
should I send it immidiately or should I wait until I have test results
to give them?
and make sure to state what testing
you've done with the patch. At a minimum you should run the glibc
testsuite
Afaict the debian packaging automatically runs the testsuite and
compares it against
a list of expected failures (ideally that list would be empty but in
real life....).
Right now i'm running into unexpected testsuite failures (unfortunately
the last
test build I didn't take a log of so i've got to run it again to find
out details of the
failures) but I do not know if those failures are related to my patch,
related to
changes in the build environment since the package was last built in debian
or related to my hardware. Further testing will be neeed to establish
that (and
said testing takes a while, a beagleboard xm isn't exactly a speed demon).
and build gdb with those newly installed headers.
Will do once I get glibc built and installed, are there any specific
tests you
want doing with gdb or is testing it still builds sufficient??
Cheers,
Carlos.
Thanks for the help and advice so-far.
Reply to: