stdarg.h and -nostdinc
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederman at lnxi.com
Wed Feb 11 11:58:01 CET 2004
Stefan Reinauer <stepan at suse.de> writes:
> * ron minnich <rminnich at lanl.gov> [040211 16:22]:
> > I can't think of anything better. My wish list is to try to remove
> > GNU-isms so I can build this on Plan 9, but at the same time we keep
> > hitting these issues.
> > If we are determined to include things like stdarg.h, I would rather carry
> > our own copy around than depend on the OS we're using. So for the moment I
> > would say "there is nothing better".
> It seems the next thing bites me here is that the va_* macros get
> resolved into gcc's builtin_va* stuff. Which, as you could guess, is
> disabled with the -nobuiltins flag we pass to gcc. What I don't really
> get yet is why I don't get unresolved symbols with this, but rather just
> no output at all. Lets see...
Just off the top of my head __builtin variants should continue to
be recognized with -fnobuiltins.
Guys do we need a developer list? I'm trying to figure out why
more of the conversations I find myself involved in are not on
the public list. Is it a signal to noise ratio problem?
I'm just annoyed that the conversations that pass through
my inbox not being on the public list seem to be more about
linuxbios than the conversations on the LinuxBIOS list.
More information about the coreboot