On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:54:57AM +0200, John Crispin wrote:
> > configure.ac | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Applied, thanks.
Karel
--
Karel Zak
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lis
Hi Waldemar,
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 17:16 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> Alexey Brodkin wrote,
>
> >
> > 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 pr
Hi Max,
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 16:43 +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Alexey Brodkin
> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO much better approach would be to include a compile test for
> > small source that uses scanf() with "%as"/"%ms".
> I doubt a direct compile test
Hi Alexey,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Alexey Brodkin
wrote:
> IMHO much better approach would be to include a compile test for
> small source that uses scanf() with "%as"/"%ms".
I doubt a direct compile test is possible here, one need to run scanf
code to find out whether %m is actually su
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 wou
Hi Waldemar
On 03/06/2016 04:23, 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
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
