This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes

From: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
Cc: Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gnu dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
References: <20081216164041.GD26067@fencepost.gnu.org><4947E888.2030305@redhat.com><20081216212935.22FFDFC3BC@magilla.sf.frob.com><49481FE7.2070900@redhat.com>

> Roland McGrath wrote:
> > and why?
> 
> Because it's unacceptable to require all those unnecessary changes just
> because hurd does something for no reason differently.

That is not an answer to the question I asked.  I'm talking about the
comprehensibility of the existing code, not about the Hurd code.  

Where does the existing code include kernel-features.h indirectly and why
does it rely on that implicitly?

Thanks,
Roland

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
  - From: Mike Frysinger

References:
- Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
  - From: Thomas Schwinge
- Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: Missing <kernel-features.h> includes
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]