[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1357972364.32505.4@driftwood>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:32:44 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NULL
On 01/09/2013 07:36:43 AM, John Spencer wrote:
>> using NULL in the argument of variadic functions is ub both
>> in c and c++
>
> many developers don't care about the standard. they take the stance:
> "works for me, if you want it patched then do it yourself and we'll
> eventually merge"
Why is it UB? The standard says it's a pointer. If you pull %p off in
printf, feeding NULL in that slot should work fine.
> yes, once you know the details, it's easy to fix.
> but when you don't, you'll have a hard time figuring out where the
> segfault comes
> from. i agree that this should get more publicity.
"C++ is hard to debug and requires you to know how nested template
expansion gets implemented down to the bare metal" is not a new problem.
Programming in C++ and hitting seemingly-trivial problems you can't
debug without reading the compiler's source code is like riding a
motorcyle and wind up with maimed for life. (There's a reason medical
personnel call them "donorcycles".)
>> i think this is not needed, you can have a definition
>> in c++ that "happens to work" just like the (void*)0
>> in c:
>>
>> #define NULL 0L
>
> yes, that'll work as well.
>
>> but this is just a workaround, the bugs still need to be fixed
It's not a workaround, it's what C99+LP64 explicitly specifies.
If doing something well-defined in C99 on Linux goes nuts on C++ in
Windows, how is this our problem?
>> (in c++11 we could use nullptr which has std::nullptr_t type
>> which converts to (void*)0 in vararg context, but c++11 is not
>> widely used yet)
Is there actually a point to the C++1!!1one! standard? The only person
I've heard actually be happy with it is the author of uClibc++, but he
liked the previous C++ standards and thinks Corba is a good idea, so...
> well, from what i heard on IRC they started to work on a musl port 2
> weeks ago (but
> it got silent since...). since they have likely more packages than
> sabotage (350)
> this issue could cause them major pain.
I wouldn't be too impressed by this.
There are somewhere between 200 and 900 packages that cross compile
"easily", for a decreasingly obvious definition of "easily" depending
on how many rocket engines you want to strap to the turtle. Projects
like OpenEmbedded and Beyond Linux From Scratch recapitulate phylogeny
with these packages, and then hit the point where your volunteers' time
is entirely consumed dealing with package upgrades to hold the existing
turf against bit-rot. (Personally, I refer to this as "the buildroot
event horizon".)
Actual distributions eventually separate "the OS" from "the
repository", where they have a core team who does work on the operating
system and a separate (much, much larger) set of package maintainers
who keep their packages of interest working but don't generally work on
the base OS other than complaining when something breaks.
You only get to the "real distro" stage when the base OS stops being
interesting. While the base OS remains a moving target, package
maintainers can't do their jobs without also being OS maintainers,
which is a much bigger time commitment and has Brooks' Law problems
with coordination overhead scaling your core team.
There are plenty of existing interesting repositories: Debian, Ubuntu,
Red Hat, SuSE, Gentoo... How much work do they do maintaining those
repos? According to
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/stats/?_csrf_token=1048fa94db94990f5c39ed12c7ca4cd8cb840ca7
Fedora has 150,000 packages (but then they break packages into several
smaller packages for no apparent reason, and this may treat x86 and
i686 versions of the same thing as separate packages). A much cleaner
reading is "wget
http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages?format=txt.gz -O - | zcat
| wc -l" which gives around 35,000 packages. (You can get larger
numbers by checking what ubuntu adds, looking at testing instead of
stable, adding in the external repositories that debian's
ultraconservative definition of "proprietary" kicks stuff to, and so
on. But this is a good ballpark.)
A more recent attempt at being a real <strike>boy</strike> distro would
be Arch Linux, and
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&arch=i686&q=&maintainer=&last_update=&flagged=&limit=50
finds 4300 packages for the i686 target, and they've been doing this
since 2002.
Reinventing the wheel because you have a new libc: not very
interesting. Trying to get a musl version of debian or gentoo that you
can push "upstream": a lot more interesting.
Rob
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.
