Re: newlib_cv_ vs libc_cv_ autoconf cache vars prefix

On 31 Jan 2022 15:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 28 04:44, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the newlib/libgloss configure scripts use both libc_cv_ and newlib_cv_ as
> > their autoconf cache var prefixes.  this really should be just one name.
> > i'm inclined to use newlib_cv_ rather than the more generic libc_cv_.  any
> > preferences or reasons to pick one or the other ?
> > 
> > libgloss also has cache vars.  i'm inclined to have it use newlib_cv_ too
> > since, as a project, it's carved out the namespace, and doesn't really need
> > its own libgloss_cv_ prefix.
> 
> AFAICS, only six libc_cv_* and two newlib_cv_* vars exist at all, and only
> two of the libc_cv_* vars are AC_SUBST'ed and show up in the Makefile.
> Using the same prefix for all vars, it would be the smaller change to
> switch the 2 newlib_cv's to libc_cv.  The result would be the same.

the reason i'm not a fan of libc_cv is that glibc uses that namespace.  if you
want to setup a config.site cache for a target that builds glibc & newlib, then
it's hard to avoid namespace conflicts.  but if we use newlib_cv_, then there's
no such collision.
-mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=0WnL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----