On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:47:12 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 23:21 +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > > Cong Wang wrote: > > > (Cc'ing some glibc developers...) > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > In glibc source file inet/netinet/in.h and kernel source file > > > include/uapi/linux/in6.h, both define struct in6_addr, and both are > > > visible to user applications. Thomas reported a conflict below. > > > > > > So, how can we handle this? /me is wondering why we didn't see this > > > before. > > [...] > > > This is not a new issue. In addition to this, > > netinet/in.h also conflits with linux/in.h. > > > > We might have > > > > #if !defined(__GLIBC__) || !defined(_NETINET_IN_H) > > > > #endif > > > > around those conflicting definitions in uapi/linux/in{,6}.h. > > This only solves half the problem, as <netinet/in.h> might be included > after <linux/in.h>. Also, not all Linux userland uses glibc. certainly true, but the current expectation is that you don't mix your ABIs.

if you're programming with the C library API, then use the C library headers. if you're banging directly on the kernel, then use the kernel headers. not saying it's a perfect solution, but it works for the vast majority of use cases.