Split UCLIBC and UCLINUX test cases
Hello,
Right now the use of UCLINUX implies the use of __UCLIBC__ as well. Even though this is true from UCLINUX's perspective, it is not valid from the uclibc's one. A non-uclinux system can perfectly work with uclibc. What I suggest is to keep the UCLINUX option as is, but also add a new option called UCLIBC which will enable us to avoid all the restrictions imposed by the use of UCLINUX macro (especially the disabled tests in testcases/kernel/systecall/Makefile).
Signature · 13 lines
markos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 7 lines · On Monday 09 January 2012 06:08:48 Markos Chandras wrote:
Right now the use of UCLINUX implies the use of
__UCLIBC__as well. Even though this is true from UCLINUX's perspective, it is not valid from the uclibc's one. A non-uclinux system can perfectly work with uclibc. What I suggest is to keep the UCLINUX option as is, but also add a new option called UCLIBC which will enable us to avoid all the restrictions imposed by the use of UCLINUX macro (especially the disabled tests in testcases/kernel/systecall/Makefile).
header/func tests should get moved to configure. we should not introduce or rely on any new ifdefs like UCLIBC or __UCLIBC__.
-mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Quoted 11 lines · Mike Frysinger
Quoted 7 lines · On Monday 09 January 2012 06:08:48 Markos Chandras wrote:
Right now the use of UCLINUX implies the use of
__UCLIBC__as well. Even though this is true from UCLINUX's perspective, it is not valid from the uclibc's one. A non-uclinux system can perfectly work with uclibc. What I suggest is to keep the UCLINUX option as is, but also add a new option called UCLIBC which will enable us to avoid all the restrictions imposed by the use of UCLINUX macro (especially the disabled tests in testcases/kernel/systecall/Makefile).header/func tests should get moved to configure. we should not introduce or rely on any new ifdefs like UCLIBC or
__UCLIBC__.
+1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list