[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <77170945-3310-4E43-A57E-D5B00974DCA0@palsenberg.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:23:38 +0200
From: Igmar Palsenberg <musl@...senberg.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
>>>> 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.
> 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
>
While I agree with the above, I still have a few objections :
- We don't want glibc compatibility. We want a good libc.
- That we even need those aliases is usually a case of bad automake / autoconf / bad feature detection.
Why bloat code with stuff to provide glibc compatibility ?
Igmar
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.
