Peter Maydell writes: > On 29 January 2016 at 13:30, Lluís Vilanova <vilan...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: >> Peter Maydell writes: >>> Adding include guards is fine, but it sounds to me like what we >>> should actually do to fix this confusion is rename all the linux-user >>> local headers to target_syscall.h. >> >> Hmmm, I didn't know if using the same name was on purpose or not. If the >> intention was *not* to override the system's syscall.h, then a rename is the >> proper solution.
> Yes, the intention is absolutely not to override any system header > (the constants defined are only relevant to the guest, and if the > header got included and overrode the host's syscall.h then nothing > would work and it probably wouldn't even compile). It just ended up > with the same name by accident. Aha, then I'll resend with the filles renamed. Cheers, Lluis
