[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: a glibc question?

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:35:55AM -0400, Tom Diehl wrote:
> Hi all,
> On another list I am on (Big Brother if anyone cares) it has been reported
> that the <time.h> header is no longer included in glibc. Was this changed

No, <time.h> is obviously included in glibc, it is required by many
standards. What has changed is that <sys/time.h> no longer includes the
whole <time.h>. This was needed to leave the namespace clean as standards
require. For what belongs in each header, see e.g.:

If some program needs declarations from both headers, but errorneously
includes just <sys/time.h>, it worked on glibc until recently but the
programs should be fixed. We've done this for all programs in the

sys/time.h was including time.h to get e.g. time_t definition, now is
sys/time.h including time.h as well, but after defining macros which only
take time_t definition from the header.

> for a reason or is bugzilla bate? People are getting compile failures on
> stuff that compiles fine on 7.0 because of this. So far the fix seems to
> be to use <sys/time.h> instead.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]