This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?
- References: <518BF284 dot 8020602 at suse dot com>
> Should e.g. bits/libc-tsd.h just be renamed to libc-tsd.h? Or is there
> an convention for non-installed headers?
We don't have a convention. For names that start with "libc-" it's pretty
obvious that's not an installed header. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to
have another convention. Perhaps <internal/foo.h> would be good. Off
hand, I don't have a strong opinion about the actual name or even a strong
opinion that we should rush to make these consistent. But in the abstract
it sounds like a good plan to have some rule whereby you can very easily
tell what's an installed header and what's an internal header.
Thanks,
Roland