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: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?


On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Or, perhaps even the other way round: have installed headers in
> installed/ subdirectories, for stating this explicitly, and anything else
> being local?  Would that also help with more easily doing repository-wide
> checking of the installed headers for namespace-cleanness and such
> things?

I'd expect implementation files to do plain #include <stdio.h> etc., which 
suggests renaming non-installed headers to make it visible at the #include 
site that they are non-installed.  But of course they are really including 
wrappers in include/ for many installed headers, rather than the installed 
version ... and arguably testcases, and miscellaneous executables 
installed by glibc, should only use such wrappers or other internal 
headers when necessary.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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