Hi Waldemar, On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 04:23 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > uClibc-ng tries to be compatible with GNU libc and defines > __GLIBC__ and pretend to be version 2.2. > We once changed it to 2.10, but then some hard to fix problems > in different software packages (gcc) occured. > It would be better if we disable the special GNU libc checks > for uClibc-ng here. uClibc-ng implements the required scanf > functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Waldemar Brodkorb <w...@uclibc-ng.org> > --- > configure.ac | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > index f36b18c..4661c0d 100644 > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ AC_CACHE_VAL([scanf_cv_alloc_modifier], > #include <stdio.h> > #include <unistd.h> > > - #ifdef __GLIBC__ > + #if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__UCLIBC__) > > #if !(__GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 7)) > #error %m is not available
Even though this is a very minor and clean change I don't like this approach. We're again implicitly assume something. IMHO much better approach would be to include a compile test for small source that uses scanf() with "%as"/"%ms". That way we may remove all dependencies on either GLIBC/UCLIBC/MUSL etc. -Alexey _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
