[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110823014433.GC132@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Is "memory.h" wanted?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:37:10PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> I recently tried building OpenSSL, and it failed to build due to a
> missing "memory.h".
> At the time, I just sidelined the project.
>
> Since then, I have looked at the glibc version; it amounts to
> #include <features.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> Which, IIRC, means a BSD-flavored/other legacy string.h
> Is this header desired for compatability, or should code using it be considered
> non-conformant and patched?
Probably both, i.e. we should add it and OpenSSL should be patched. In
the long term I'm thinking about adding #warning to all of the
nonsensical legacy headers and wrong-location headers (missing sys/-
prefix or incorrect sys/- prefix) to help track down and correct such
errors in programs.
> Also, have any SSL libraries (besides openssh internal) have been
> verified to work with musl?
I have bitlbee and irssi both linked with OpenSSL and haven't had any
problems with them, but I haven't tried all the features that depend
on SSL. I think GNU TLS built correctly too but I gave up on trying to
use it when software kept wanting more and more other libs along with
it - some GPG-internal libs if I remember right...
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
