[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251102111855.GA24871@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2025 12:18:55 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] tools/nolibc: add the more portable inttypes.h
On Sun, Nov 02, 2025 at 12:04:01PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On 2025-11-02 11:46:09+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > It's often recommended to only use inttypes.h instead of stdint.h for
> > portability reasons since the former is always present when the latter
> > is present, but not conversely, and the former includes the latter. Due
> > to this some simple programs fail to build when including inttypes.h.
> > Let's add one that simply includes stdint.h to better support these
> > programs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > ---
> > tools/include/nolibc/Makefile | 1 +
> > tools/include/nolibc/inttypes.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/include/nolibc/inttypes.h
>
> I think this should also interact with the big nolibc.h.
> Both being included from it and including it itself, to follow the
> generally used pattern.
>
You mean you'd prefer "include nolibc.h" from inttypes and
"include inttypes" from nolibc, that's it ?
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists