This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] alpha bits/mman.h vs mman-linux.h
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:59:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] alpha bits/mman.h vs mman-linux.h
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52A1FBFA dot 9030107 at twiddle dot net>
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Joseph mentions in the wiki that alpha isn't using <bits/mman-linux.h>. I'd
> been avoiding this because mman-linux.h isn't quite as configurable as it might
> be, but here's a first cut.
>
> Is this reasonable, with the undefs? Ought I play more with __FOO as we
> already do for __MAP_ANONYMOUS?
My preference is use of __FOO in such cases, at least if whether the macro
should be defined depends on feature test macros, so that the
architecture-specific files don't need to duplicate the logic about which
feature test macros enable which header definitions. (Of course, if the
symbol, not just its value, is architecture-specific, then you can't avoid
such tests in the architecture-specific files.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com