Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1467693

Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and __u64 from <linux/types.h>")

Show all headers | View raw

On 22 August 2016 at 15:38, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That said, _note_ that some applications are built with -C89 -pedantic
>>> [1] which means that using stdint.h may or may not work as expected.
>>> So we'll want a __STDC_VESION__ check + #error in case of pre-C99 ?
>>> If the affected programs are proprietary ones we should be safe,
>>> otherwise we want to update them ~alongside the transition.
>>
>> naw, at least for msm_drm.h, just don't build libdrm_freedreno w/
>> -C89.. problem solved!
>
> Yeah, I think sprinkling an
>
> #ifdef __kernel___
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #else
> #include <stdtypes.h>
> #endif
>
Guess i was too vague :-]

I was thinking about the following cases:
 - using old/incomplete stdint.h - thus the __STDC_VESION__ check.
 - building non-libdrm software - for libdrm we've (implicitly and
explicitly) required C99 for a long time.

> at the opt of all drm uapi headers should be good enough. Or at least
> those which opt to choose stdints. Since our userspace is very
> limited, and our headers will never leak to general applications we
> can just require c99, at least for driver headers. For kms/general drm
> uapi that might not be the best idea.
Won't doing so bring more confusion to an already convoluted topic ?
If we opt for it, let's have a juicy comment that clarifies things.

-Emil

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI (was  Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and __u64  from <linux/types.h>") Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 10:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Christian König <deathsimple@vodafone.de> - 2016-08-22 11:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> - 2016-08-22 12:30 +0200
  Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 12:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-08-22 16:40 +0200
      Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 17:10 +0200
        Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI  (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and  __u64 from <linux/types.h>") randyf@sibernet.com - 2016-08-22 23:30 +0200

csiph-web