From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 121787 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2018 11:13:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 121774 invoked by uid 89); 18 Apr 2018 11:13:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:13:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Samuel Thibault CC: Florian Weimer , Thomas Schwinge , GNU C Library , , David Michael Subject: Re: Upstreaming the glibc Hurd port In-Reply-To: <20180417230835.pa5a3lvoudjyt4gy@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> Message-ID: References: <20180125014143.2hxhzon5lzxtqq6j@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180319015122.j5tzslkdcnvampoh@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180402001003.3u5n2p5pdmv4hos5@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180402155017.iermidp5siqgcixv@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180402161347.e5nx7cdt7pkgx52u@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180417225015.56yv5wktzcx75srk@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20180417230835.pa5a3lvoudjyt4gy@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.2) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Joseph Myers, le mar. 17 avril 2018 23:02:45 +0000, a ecrit: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > The patch below would just introduce bits/types/struct___sched_param.h. > > > and bits/types/struct_sched_param.h for all ports since it's the same. > > > > A bits/types/struct_sched_param.h that does "#define sched_param > > __sched_param" is not appropriate for Linux, because it would change the > > C++ mangling of struct sched_param. > > Oh. > > So that could be as per below? That seems plausible (this is not a review of this patch). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com