Re: [PATCH v1] Port ndbm

On 26/07/2019 13:58, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 5:34 AM Vaibhav Gupta <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:49 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists) <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2019 10:09, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 2:31 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists) <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/07/2019 17:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 24 10:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 2:23 AM Corinna Vinschen <
>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 10 14:25, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>     newlib/libc/include/ndbm.h     |  93 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     newlib/libc/search/Makefile.am |   1 +
>>>>>>>>>     newlib/libc/search/ndbm.c      | 217
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     3 files changed, 311 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 newlib/libc/include/ndbm.h
>>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 newlib/libc/search/ndbm.c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pushed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It touched a Makefile.am. Doesn't something need to be regenerated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, right.  Done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corinna
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm now seeing a build error on arm-eabi (though interestingly, not
>>>>> AArch64):
>>>>>
>>>>> /work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/./gcc/xgcc
>>>>> -B/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/./gcc/ -nostdinc
>>>>> -B/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/arm-eabi/thumb/newlib/
>>>>> -isystem
>>>>>
>>>
>> /work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/arm-eabi/thumb/newlib/targ-include
>>>>>
>>>>> -isystem
>>>>> /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/newlib/libc/include
>>>>> -B/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/arm-eabi/thumb/libgloss/arm
>>>>>
>>>
>> -L/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/arm-eabi/thumb/libgloss/libnosys
>>>>>
>>>>> -L/work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/libgloss/arm
>>>>> -B/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/testinstall/arm-eabi/bin/
>>>>> -B/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/testinstall/arm-eabi/lib/
>>>>> -isystem
>>>>> /work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/testinstall/arm-eabi/include
>>>>> -isystem
>>>>>
>>> /work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/testinstall/arm-eabi/sys-include
>>>>> -L/work/rearnsha/scratch/nightly/arm/trunk/./ld  -mthumb
>>>>> -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"newlib\"
>>>>> -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"3.1.0\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"newlib\ 3.1.0\"
>>>>> -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" -I.
>>>>> -I/work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/newlib/libc/search
>>>>> -fno-builtin -D_COMPILING_NEWLIB -DARM_RDI_MONITOR -DHAVE_INIT_FINI
>>>>> -g -O2  -mthumb -c -o lib_a-ndbm.o `test -f 'ndbm.c' || echo
>>>>>
>>>
>> '/work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/newlib/libc/search/'`ndbm.c
>>>>>
>> /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/newlib/libc/search/ndbm.c:
>>>>> In function ‘dbm_open’:
>>>>>
>>>
>> /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/nightly/gcc-cross/trunk/newlib/libc/search/ndbm.c:67:12:
>>>>>
>>>>> error: ‘MAXPATHLEN’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>>>>>       67 |  char path[MAXPATHLEN];
>>>>>          |            ^~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this file need to include sys/param.h?
>>>>>
>>>> Yah. sys/param.h has the macro definition of MAXPATHLEN
>>>> .
>>>> I guess ndbm.c has included it.
>>>
>>> Well, not included it.
>>>
>> I checked my patch, ndbm.c is including sys/param.h
>> .
>> Or you mean that you have not included it?
>>
> 
> I think the issue is that there is an arm specific sys/param.h which does
> not define MAXPATHLEN.
> 
> $ find . -name param.h | xargs -e grep MAXPATHLEN
> ./libc/include/sys/param.h:#define MAXPATHLEN PATH_MAX
> ./libc/sys/phoenix/sys/param.h:#define MAXPATHLEN       PATHSIZE
> ./libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/param.h: * MAXPATHLEN defines the longest
> permissible path length after expanding
> ./libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/param.h:#define    MAXPATHLEN      PATH_MAX
> 
> $ find . -name param.h | grep sys/param
> ./libc/include/sys/param.h
> ./libc/sys/linux/sys/param.h
> ./libc/sys/phoenix/sys/param.h
> ./libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/param.h
> ./libc/sys/arm/sys/param.h
> 
> Based on those commands, I the file ./libc/sys/arm/sys/param.h is the
> culprit. It is very minimal. It looks like a simple out of date copy of
> libc/include/sys/param.h.
> 
> My proposed fix is to delete libc/include/sys/arm/param.h. Does that work
> for you Richard?
> 

Or move some or all of it to machine/param.h, which is currently a 
placeholder.  Need to think about this a bit, but off to a meeting right 
now.

R.

> --joel
> 
> 
>>
>> Vaibhav Gupta
>>
>>>
>>> R.
>>>>
>>>> Vaibhav Gupta
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>