src: unbreak build when compiling against uclibc#8308
Merged
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bnoordhuis added the c++ 
Contributor
cjihrig commented Aug 28, 2016
LGTM |
Member
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/4810/ |
Member
jasnell commented Aug 30, 2016
LGTM |
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: nodejs#8233 PR-URL: nodejs#8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Closed
Fishrock123 pushed a commit to Fishrock123/node that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2016
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: nodejs#8233 PR-URL: nodejs#8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Fishrock123 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2016
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: #8233 PR-URL: #8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Contributor
MylesBorins commented Sep 30, 2016
@bnoordhuis backport to v4? |
MemberAuthor
bnoordhuis commented Oct 1, 2016
Yes. |
Contributor
MylesBorins commented Oct 11, 2016
@bnoordhuis |
MemberAuthor
bnoordhuis commented Oct 11, 2016
Sorry, it depends on #6734 which is tagged but not back-ported yet. I don't know if or when I'll get around to that. |
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both
__GLIBC__and
__UCLIBC__to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"logic.
Assume that when
__UCLIBC__is defined, we are dealing with a libcthat does not have execinfo.h.
Fixes: #8233