From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-ports-return-3093-listarch-libc-ports=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26769 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2012 16:56:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 26681 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2012 16:56:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from toast.topped-with-meat.com (HELO topped-with-meat.com) (204.197.218.159)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:56:13 +0000
Received: by topped-with-meat.com (Postfix, from userid 5281)	id 1F2972C10C; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
To: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,    David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,    "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,    Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>,    <libc-ports@sourceware.org>,    GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,    Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unify pthread_spin_[try]lock implementations.
In-Reply-To: Maxim Kuvyrkov's message of  Thursday, 16 August 2012 04:52:39 +1200 <AFCB985E-C1C3-49FB-8267-003F6E9D30DB@codesourcery.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206282306320.20312@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>	<65B470D2-4D01-4BA1-AEC5-A72C0006EA22@codesourcery.com>	<20120711081441.73BB22C093@topped-with-meat.com>	<20120711.012509.1325789838255235021.davem@davemloft.net>	<4FFD3CD9.4030206@redhat.com>	<84304C03-6A49-4263-9016-05486EDC0E98@codesourcery.com>	<4FFD4114.9000806@redhat.com>	<E1DB09C1-0E3E-4088-9793-C0CAB80B5084@codesourcery.com>	<20120711112235.B28CA2C099@topped-with-meat.com>	<7FBB4F87-9FF3-4239-818F-5A38C8094011@codesourcery.com>	<20120725181300.DD1812C0B5@topped-with-meat.com>	<36A2FFD8-0C98-4AB6-8C64-2EEC5CC67A63@codesourcery.com>	<20120815162637.B74982C0F2@topped-with-meat.com>	<BE128C9A-CABC-4E04-A48E-316EAE8E0C64@codesourcery.com>	<20120815164350.7BE932C105@topped-with-meat.com>	<AFCB985E-C1C3-49FB-8267-003F6E9D30DB@codesourcery.com>
Message-Id: <20120815165613.1F2972C10C@topped-with-meat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:56:00 -0000
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=LtfpOghc c=1 sm=1 a=IOX5nZC-PoQA:10		a=Z6MIti7PxpgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=hOe2yjtxAAAA:8 a=14OXPxybAAAA:8		a=YrYOFrqlsOIA:10 a=pTRiRpf1fsGAtwmcc8wA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10		a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-ports.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-ports-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-ports@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-ports-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2

> This works at least with GCC 4.4 and GCC 4.8, albeit with a warning:
> 
> ../ports/sysdeps/mips/nptl/pthread_spin_lock.c:19:2: warning: #include_next in primary source file [enabled by default]
>  #include_next <nptl/pthread_spin_lock.c>
>   ^

Right.  We don't want that.

> Given that previous versions of GCC can, potentially, fail to compile
> this, I would rather use the "../../../../nptl/pthread_spin_lock.c"
> version.  Any alternative suggestions?

Anything that depends on the location of the source file is a bad idea.
It will break if things get moved around, and perhaps nonobviously.
You could use <sysdeps/../nptl/foo.c> but it merits a comment about why
the more common and simple <nptl/foo.c> is not being used.


Thanks,
Roland