[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <500EE723.5050003@purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:19:15 -0400
From: Gregor Richards <gr@...due.edu>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
On 07/24/12 14:15, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
>>> Just nonsense aliases GNU uses...
>>> Needed for ABI compatability.
>> could we mark them as such? at least with a comment.
>> I really like that musl is so readable. This patch adds some obfuscation that can simply be countered by marking it as "ok this is only here for reason X."
> I would like to see those options behind a compile time option : It bloats musl with in many cases unneeded code. I test my compiles with musl, and I like it lean and mean.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Igmar
These are just aliases, not code. There's no bloat there.
One of the advantages of musl is its LACK of configurability: If you
have “musl”, you know what precisely you're getting.
With valediction,
- Gregor Richards
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.
