On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:24:26AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:05:14AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
nolibc does not provide this header, instead its definitions are available unconditionally.
Please think about reminding which one you're talking about so that a simple "git log" shows what header you're talking about (limits.h) without requiring to also see the patch itself.
Ack.
BTW, I think that limits.h is common enough that we could probably provide it as well with nolibc to ease porting (and the current patch is a good example of this). Maybe it could simply start by including stdint.h to provide the various limits we rely on. I remember that in the early days of nolibc-test we had to exclude it as well for nolibc.
What do you think? The less we need to patch programs to insert #ifndef NOLIBC, the better.
Sounds good, I'll do that for v2. Given that any nolibc header always also includes the global nolibc.h, I think limits.h can directly include nolibc.h.
Cheers, Willy