[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121208041707.GT20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 23:17:07 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Revised 1.0 wishlist
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:59:37PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> The following wishlist is a draft. I may have missed some items, and
> the compatibility goals and testing goals are new ideas subject to
> discussion.
One further goal I'd like to add is increasing the level of ABI
stability. If it seems feasible to match the C++ ABI with glibc, I
think we should go ahead and do that before 1.0 rather than after
(where we would break our own C++ ABI). That means using matching
struct tags for structures that might be involved as arguments in C++
functions, dealing with some types that are defined differently (like
glibc using long instead of a pointer type for pthread_t), etc. In
really ugly cases like pthread_t, I think we could put the bad
definition for compatibility under #ifdef __cplusplus so that C
programs get the benefits of musl's superior definition.
Thoughts on this? Anybody up for auditing the differences, either
fully or at least partially to see if aligning them is feasible? The
reason I'm interested in this is that I suspect a decent portion of
the binaryware apps/libs we might want to support may be written in
C++ rather than C.
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.
