From: Tsukasa OI <research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>, Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include: Declare getopt function on old GNU libc
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:33:14 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3b7e769f-b5e9-4049-786f-d00d997f0280@irq.a4lg.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96f0f54e-3acd-c880-6f12-02f6d037501d@palves.net>
On 2022/10/17 20:52, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-10-16 2:12 p.m., Tsukasa OI wrote:
>> On 2022/10/13 20:59, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-13 11:11 a.m., Tsukasa OI via Binutils wrote:
>>>> On GNU libc <= 2.25, <unistd.h> includes <getopt.h> with __need_getopt macro
>>>> defined. That <getopt.h> is intended to be a part of GNU libc but
>>>> <unistd.h> actually includes include/getopt.h in this project.
>>>
>>> Messy.
>>
>> Well, I have to agree.
>>
>>>
>>> Do we really still need this getopt.h header?
>>>
>>> gnulib, at:
>>>
>>> https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/getopt_002eh.html
>>>
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "This header file is missing on some platforms: AIX 5.1, HP-UX 11, MSVC 14."
>>>
>>> AIX 5.1 is from 2001.
>>> HP-UX 11 is from 1997.
>>> We don't support building with MSVC AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Can't we just get rid of it?
>>>
>>
>> I feel this is too unsafe to do that
>
> Why? Are you aware of any host system that people actually build binutils on
> that doesn't have a proper getopt declaration?
No. I'm worrying because currently included getopt.h contains
declarations of getopt_long and getopt_long_only. Those declarations
are required (not necessarily in <getopt.h> though) because if the
system does not have getopt_long and/or getopt_long_only, libiberty
implementation is (and should be) used.
>> (unless you assume getopt_long and
>> getopt_long_only are always available on the system).
That's why I said the sentence above.
>
> getopt is supposed to be declared in unistd.h. The .c files that
> use getopt (not the GNU extensions) could just switch to including
> that one.
>
> Even if there is such a system, I would think that a better fix would
> be to rename include/getopt.h to something else, and have that header include
> <getopt.h> and/or do whatever else needed to pick the right declarations on the system.
> A standard header replacement that doesn't #include_next the original is just asking
> for trouble, like we've run into...
I also agree that. In fact, that was my first idea to deal with this
problem. As a long-term solution, I support your idea.
But, as a short-term solution, there are a few obstacles and intentions:
1. The fact that include/getopt.h is shared by both Binutils and GCC
projects so that we must sync Binutils and GCC.
That would be far beyond my capacity to handle. My messy patch also
changed include/getopt.h but I thought I can explain the changes
to GCC people (since the changes were that small).
2. I don't want to disrupt any release schedule. The changes will not
be small and spans through multiple subprojects.
3. For me, it's fine as long as...
a. CentOS 7 regression is resolved and
b. Build problem with Clang is fewer than before
Replacing getopt with getopt_long won't be large and relatively
self-explanatory. I will propose sim workaround as a short-term solution.
_At the same time_, we could discuss the possibility of getting rid of
"include/getopt.h" entirely.
Thanks,
Tsukasa
>
>>
>> Even if this patch is unacceptable, I don't want to revert previous
>> changes to sim/configure{,.ac} either (it's necessary to prevent a build
>> failure with Clang).
>
> It's only necessary because of this hacky include/getopt.h header existing, no?.
> Why would you want to keep the configure.ac bits if the hacky header with the
> unprototyped declaration doesn't exist any more?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>
>> It's also a hack but to stop using getopt
>> (entirely) may be an option, changing following files:
>>
>> - sim/igen/igen.c
>> - sim/m32c/main.c
>> - sim/rl78/main.c
>>
>> I mean, we could replace getopt with getopt_long plus dummy longopts.
>> This way, CentOS (7) regression will (also) be gone.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tsukasa
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-18 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1664095312.git.research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com>
[not found] ` <cover.1665038297.git.research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com>
[not found] ` <a57b2a3460064a9adc95914ba21214c8dbfc2bbf.1665038297.git.research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com>
[not found] ` <7b235ccb-ab2e-cba0-3015-2eae5fe6a8a4@suse.de>
2022-10-13 9:50 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] sim: Check known getopt definition existence Tsukasa OI
2022-10-13 10:11 ` [PATCH] include: Declare getopt function on old GNU libc Tsukasa OI
2022-10-13 11:59 ` Pedro Alves
2022-10-16 13:12 ` Tsukasa OI
2022-10-17 11:52 ` Pedro Alves
2022-10-18 11:33 ` Tsukasa OI [this message]
2022-10-13 12:05 ` Tom de Vries
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3b7e769f-b5e9-4049-786f-d00d997f0280@irq.a4lg.com \
--to=research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).