[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       uclibc
Subject:    Re: Should atomic.h really be installed?
From:       Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-06-12 14:46:39
Message-ID: 20140612144639.GB14817 () nbbrfq ! cc ! univie ! ac ! at
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Gregory Fong wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I notice that right now atomic.h and bits/atomic.h are installed with
> NPTL (not removed when UCLIBC_HAS_THREADS_NATIVE=y).  However,
> shouldn't this just be a libc-internal interface?  Several of the
> glibc devs seem to think that exposing this is a bad idea:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2010-11/msg00015.html
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2010-11/msg00016.html
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2010-11/msg00012.html
> 
> I'm hoping someone can clarify why uClibc does install this header.
> FWIW, I noticed this because bits/atomic.h is not usable on ARM right
> now because it includes internal headers (also suggesting that this
> interface was not intended to be exposed)

I suppose this is just an oversight, see current master.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]