From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54080 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755043AbbHYJ4x (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 05:56:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH TRIVIAL v2] Avoid conflict with host definitions when cross-compiling References: <1439549533-8716-1-git-send-email-p.fedin@samsung.com> <55D5BAA4.5050003@suse.com> <00dc01d0df0a$3bda3e90$b38ebbb0$@samsung.com> From: Michal Marek Message-ID: <55DC3BE3.6010207@suse.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:56:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Pavel Fedin , Linux Kbuild mailing list On 2015-08-25 10:18, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2015-08-25 16:47 GMT+09:00 Pavel Fedin : >> Hello! >> >>> I am not happy with getting weird code to work around issues on >>> non-Linux systems. >> >> What is your criteria of being weird? Why are four #undef's weird ? > > > I am not criticizing your particular patch. > > Once we decide to support building on other OSes, > I fear more and more patches would come in > to fix building issues. While nowadays Linux is often the first OS ported to a new architecture and is cross compiled on another Linux system, I think portable code is a virtue on its own, _unless_ it requires having compatibility wrappers for half of the library calls and whatnot. It's hard to draw a line, but it'd say patches to enable build on Cygwin are OK (since it emulates a POSIX system quite well), whereas patches to enable build on native Windows, dealing with pathname lookup differences, .exe suffixes, adding a libc wrapper, etc, would be frowned upon. Would you agree to such loosely defined criteria? Michal