Re: newlib_cv_ vs libc_cv_ autoconf cache vars prefix

On Jan 31 22:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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

Good point.  Feel free to make the change.


Corinna