[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183121966.1170.324.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:59:26 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@...us.fraunhofer.de>,
arjan@...radead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
schilling@...us.fraunhofer.de, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel include files
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 15:49 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> I'll have to chime in here.
> Test program:
> #include <sys/socket.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <arpa/inet.h>
> #include <netinet/in.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <linux/in.h> /* get IP_FREEBIND */
>
> Creates a lot of error messages.
> (Lots of redefinitions.)
>
> $ rpm -q linux-kernel-headers glibc
> linux-kernel-headers-2.6.21-7
> glibc-2.6-5
> (suse 10.3 factory)
>
> So looks like there's still something to do.
Hm, yes. But what? Is it reasonable for people to include <linux/in.h>
and <netinet/in.h> at the same time?
It's suboptimal that they have to include <linux/in.h> for certain
definitions, but that file also provides conflicting definitions of
stuff which exists elsewhere.
Should we split <linux/in.h> into two parts?
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists