Re: [Linux-ia64] C++ doesn't like asm/atomic.h

From: Gary Hade <garyhade_at_us.ibm.com>
Date: 2002-04-09 05:33:40
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:13:29PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On 08 Apr 2002 12:23:14 -0700, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> said:
> 
>   Uli> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:00, David Mosberger wrote:
>   >> So you're OK with glibc providing the syscall stubs for
>   >> module*(), but not the header files required to use them?
> 
>   Uli> Yes.  There is no fundamental problems with this.
> 
> I guess I don't really see the harm in having glibc provide a header
> for these system call, but as long as the syscall stubs are there,
> it's probably not a huge issue in practice.

David, did you mean to say "... in having glibc not provide ..."?
                                                ^^^
I notice that the *_module(2) man pages which advocate the use of
#include <linux/module.h> are installed as part of the modutils
package.  Is is possibly "modutils" that should provide the header
file that avoids sucking in the possibly problematic kernel-only
code.

Gary
Received on Mon Apr 08 13:33:25 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:08 EST