[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFipMOHKFkKhFhvCpLwEaWL6zzU4qCcjs+Zb8fmPrySKa0WPZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:39:27 -0400
From: LM <lmemsm@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h
On 3/29/13, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:44:05PM +0100, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>> Is it possible to add to the features.h __MUSL__ definition?
>>
>> glibc can be identified by __GLIBC__, uclibc through __UCLIBC__ etc.
>
> Is this question in the FAQ yet? If not, it really should be. The
> answer is no, it won't be added, because it's a bug to assume a
> certain implementation has particular properties rather than testing.
> So far, every time somebody's asked for this with a particular usage
> case in mind, the usage case was badly wrong, and would have broken
> support for the next release of musl...
Was thinking an identifier like __MUSL__ would be useful as well. So
what would be the best way to identify that this compiler is different
than the default system compiler for an example like openssl's
ui_openssl.c file? The patch at
https://bitbucket.org/GregorR/musl-pkgsrc-patches/src/6becfeda746a4c456474f1aff0b21701b27e9d0d/security-openssl.diff?at=default
just uses sed to replace things. I came up with something similar as
well when I was attempting to build openssl. Needed to conditionally
define TERMIOS and undef TERMIO. Would be nice if this could be done
in the code using ifdefs instead of with sed, so that the patch could
be sent back to the openssl developers.
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.
