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: [PATCH 1/2] BZ#13743: PowerPC - Add a new header for platformspecific functions


On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Steven Munroe
<munroesj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> The timebnase is just one example we are working more.
>
> The timebase is not a linux specific feature but other OSes do proved
> simple C/C++ access to the timebase via headers.
>
> Other examples like program priority register and priority adjustment
> ops do need to be coordinated with the kernel (PPC save/restore).
>
> We could split the Linux specific from the platform general cases. But I
> don't why we would need to make this complicated.

This isn't really that complicated.

There is value in discussing what would be most useful to your users.

> If you really insist we could have ./sys/platform.h
> from ./sysdeps/powerpc/ that includes ./bits/platform.h from
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/

That would be optimal, and doesn't violate the layering principle
we have in glibc.

>> Regarding the GCC vs. GLIBC header split decision, I've summarized my
>> opinion, and the points made in this conversation so far:
>
> It is more work to get a builtin and perhaps that could be long term
> goal, but many items start a simple headers with macros and then migrate
> into gcc builtins after the general utility is accepted.

Why does it have to be a builtin?

What stops GCC from installing a header?

Cheers,
Carlos.


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