RE: gnumach with gcc-2.95.1 or newer
Hello Marcus,
my first motivation was to remove some compiler warnings
when I got conflicts between vararg and stdarg.
I think the stdarg interface is "better" because it is
a standard (ANSI). So I personally never use the out-of-date
vararg interface.
The dependency on glibc headers exists because of the
header files involved, but there should not be an
object or library dependency because the stdarg interface
consists of inline or builtin functions. But to be true:
I did not check this. I just tried to use the patched kernel
and did not observe any problem which might be related to glibc.
Regards,
Stefan
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Brinkmann [mailto:Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:09 AM
To: OKUJI Yoshinori
Cc: Weil, Stefan 3732 EPE-24; debian-hurd@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: gnumach with gcc-2.95.1 or newer
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:36:30PM +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
> Although I just glanced your patches, they are basically right, I
> think. If the patched kernel can be built cleanly, they should be
> applied to the CVS.
I am not sure that it is the right thing to remove sys/vararg and replace it
with stdarg, as this seems to be creating a dependency on glibc which could
cause
trouble when bootstrapping the Hurd (gnumach -> hurd-header -> glibc ->
hurd).
Stefan, what was your motivation to replace these calls?
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP
Key
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de, marcus@gnu.org PGP Key ID
36E7CD09
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
brinkmd@debian.org
Reply to: