Re: RLIM_INFINITY defined twice

[Bob Gustafson]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:18:26 +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 02:12:23PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:14:12PM -0500, Bob Gustafson wrote:
>>
>> > The warning RLIM_INFINITY has come up before (compiling iptables I
>> > believe), but this time it caused the failure of a test in configure and
>> > the make then failed with the erronious #undef HAVE_RESOURCE_H instead of
>> > defining it.
>> >
>> > There are two resource.h files, one in include/bits and the other in
>> > include/asm. They contain two different definitions.
>> >
>> > Which one should be used?
>
>First of all, your RLIM_INFINITY definition should match the system call you
>use.  At this moment, there are two versions of getrlimit syscall, one of
>them assumes that RLIM_INFINITY == MAX_LONG,
>the other that RLIM_INFINITY == MAX_ULONG.
>I would prefer the newer syscall with RLIM_INFINITY definition from kernel
>(MAX_ULONG).
>
>> Only the libc definitions and never the kernel definitions.  With a few
>> exceptions applications shouldn't include any definitions from <linux/...>
>> or <asm/...>.
>
>Ralf, it may be a surprise for you :-), but glibc-2.0 includes
><asm/resource.h> from its <resourcebits.h>.
>Yes, glibc headers conflit with kernel ones very often.
>There is a solution other than mentioned by Ralf.  Do not include libc
>headers.

This solution seemed to work fine for ppp-2.4.0b2 - I just commented out
all of the #include <sys/resource.h> lines in the source code.

Thanks much

Bob Gustafson