[LTP] 回复：[PATCH v1] include/mk/env_post.mk: enable __ANDROID__ definition for Android build

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

Hi Sandeep,

> > > > -CFLAGS    += -Werror-implicit-function-declaration
> > > > +CFLAGS    += -Werror-implicit-function-declaration -D__ANDROID__
> > > Would adding __ANDROID__ definition help building LTP with distro
> > > cross-compiler? (i.e. no NDK, no inside AOSP tree)?
> > > I guess so and therefore, I'd be for this change.
> > > I see some projects added it as well (busybox [1] [2], dnsmasq [3]).
> > > BTW: where is defined for AOSP and NDK?

> > I think I've used __ANDROID__ and __BIONIC__ in the past for android-specific
> > things.  Honestly, I haven't tried to build for Android outside of AOSP tree
> > yet. I am happy to test this if you tell me how? (sorry for that.)
> Great, thanks a lot!

> According to [1] android toolchain (I guess both AOSP and NDK toolchain) define
> __ANDROID__. Which is what I'd expect.

> Grepping aosp only dnsmasq and swiftshader use -D__ANDROID__ (these are from
> externals). -DANDROID is use more times (e.g. some drivers in hardware - ril,
> qcom, libsensors and wpa_supplicant).

> From my point of view, instead of -D__ANDROID__ or -DANDROID I'd prefer to to have
> proper #ifdef HAVE_FOO guarders made by autotools checks. As android is not the
> only minor libc. But I understand it's not always possible and we already use
> some #ifdef __ANDROID__ in library sources and headers, so ack from myself to
> help compilation outside AOSP and without NDK.
Actually I was wrong. 1) I was using NDK toolchain. I'd expect it'd generate
__ANDROID__, but I don't see it in the output. 2) Building for android with
distro toolchain doesn't make sense as it wouldn't have Bionic.

Kind regards,
Petr