Re: [PATCH 1/6] meson: simplify and parameterize various standard function checks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/21/25 8:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 4/21/25 1:51 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>> This is repetitive logic. We either want to use some -lc function, or if
>>> it is not available we define it as -DNO_XXX and usually (but not
>>> always) provide some custom compatibility impl instead.
>>>
>>> Checking the intent of each block when reading through the file is slow
>>> and not very DRY. Switch to taking an array of checkable functions
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Not all functions are straightforward to move, since different macro
>>> prefixes are used.
>>
>>
>> By the way, when reviewing this I was having a slightly hard time
>> figuring out which stuff belonged here... specifically, because of the
>> differences in macro prefixes lead me to believe it's not always so
>> simple as "does it exist".
> 
> 
> As there are non-zero number of meson related topics in flight, I'd
> like to know where this new series is meant to apply, if you need
> some of them before we can apply it, and what is the overall goal
> this series has ("there is no theme, they are just random set of
> changes to do such and such things" is perfectly acceptable answer).
> 
> And the best place to describe these things is in the cover letter
> [PATCH 0/6] of the series.


My apologies. There was no big theme other than that they were things I
determined were relevant to more closely match the Makefile
expectations, while investigating a badly worded report (in fact, a
wholly uncommunicated :( local patch ) of git not building on Gentoo's
Solaris environment ( https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix )

e.g. I simplified the repetitive lists because it made it easier to do
the followup patch adding a new check for getpagesize (which I needed,
because it needed to be checked on Solaris).

I think that I sort of subconsciously assumed that "if in doubt, assume
it's independently developed against the current state of the master
branch".

I do not need any other series merged, I think it should apply to
`master` independently of all of them. I can't see anything available in
origin/master..origin/seen that would clash, at least.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux