Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools/nolibc: assorted build fixes for nolibc-test in rare cases

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 10:13:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hello Paul,
> 
> please find in this series two small build fixes. One of them concerns
> two missing include files for building the test against other libc (at
> least glibc) since we added the tests for integer types and ranges. The
> second one removes a single occurrence of a variable definition inside
> the init statement of a for loop that breaks with older compilers which
> do not default to c99. They're still convenient to test the portability
> of the lib itself and I continue to use them for this purpose.
> 
> I consider that there's no rush on this, since these issues only affect
> developers adding test cases, who should normally rebase on top of your
> dev branch. So it's fine if it goes there.

Queued and pushed for the v6.5 merge window (the one after the upcoming
one), thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> Thank you!
> Willy
> 
> Willy Tarreau (2):
>   tools/nolibc: tests: fix build on non-c99 compliant compilers
>   tools/nolibc: fix build of the test case using glibc
> 
>  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.17.5
>