From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1463 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2004 16:23:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1218 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jun 2004 16:23:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040630162327.1217.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "egmont at uhulinux dot hu" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040630145727.245.egmont@uhulinux.hu> References: <20040630145727.245.egmont@uhulinux.hu> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug nptl/245] lowlevellock.h not installed X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From egmont at uhulinux dot hu 2004-06-30 16:23 ------- Then why is bits/stdio-lock.h installed at all? It is unusable this way, since tries to include . At least if this include statement was surrounded by some #ifdef, but it isn't. So then stdio-lock.h shouldn't be installed either to provide more a consistent set of header files. IMHO it doesn't make any sense to install a header file which is totally unusable due to missing dependencies. (Believe me, I'd silently started to patch my gcc2 if I saw glibc simply changing but remaining consistent to itself.) -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.