On Apr 1, 2006, at 19:22:13, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:26:41 +0000 Pavel Machek wrote:
I plan to add a lot of other definitions to this file later on.
For example different architectures have
different notions of what a __kernel_ino_t is (unsigned int
versus unsigned long). I may rename this file as types.h, but
from looking through the code I figure I'll have enough general
purpose declarations about "This architecture has blah" that a
separate stddef.h file will be worth it.
(and... why do you prefix these with _KABI? that's a mistake
imo. Don't bother with that. Really. Either these need
exporting to userspace, but then either use __ as prefix or
don't use a prefix. But KABI.. No.)
According to the various standards all symbols beginning with __
are reserved for "The Implementation", including the compiler,
the standard library, the kernel, etc. In order to avoid
clashing with any/all of those, I picked the __KABI_ and __kabi_
prefixes for uniqueness. In theory I could just use __, but
there are problems with that too. For example, note how the
current compiler.h files redefine __always_inline to mean
something kinda different. The GCC manual says we should be able
to write this:
__KABI_ everywhere will just make your headers totally
unreadable. Please don't do that.
Ack, I agree.
Let me reiterate two facts:
(1) The various C standards state that the implementation should
restrict itself to symbols prefixed with "__", everything else is
reserved for user code (Including symbols prefixed with a single
underscore).
(2) GCC predefines a large collection of symbols, macros, and
functions for its own use, and this set is not constant (just look at
the number of new __-prefixed symbols added between GCC 3 and 4. In
addition, we're not just compiling this code under GCC, but people
will also be using it (hopefully unmodified) under tiny-cc, intel-cc,
PGI, PathScale, Lahey, ARM Ltd, lcc, and possibly others. It
probably does not need to be stated that for something as userspace-
sensitive as the KABI headers we should not risk colliding with
predefined builtins in any of those compilers.
So my question to the list is this:
Can you come up with any way other than using a "__kabi_" prefix to
reasonably avoid namespace collisions with that large list of
compilers? If you have some way, I'd be interested to hear it, but
as a number of those compilers are commercial I'd have no way to test
on them (and I suspect most people on this list would not either).
Of course, if the general consensus is that supporting non-GCC is not
important, then that's ok with me. Judging from the number of
negative responses my earlier "[OT] Non-GCC compilers used for linux
userspace" got, however, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Thanks for the advice!
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
