[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160323132840.GD69755@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:28:40 -0400
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@....org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sérgio Marques wrote:
>
> How are we expected to solve this kind of problem if not by using the
> __MUSL__ macro?
The recommended solution is to fix the code to be portable, instead of
installing yet another special-case workaround.
In this case, wrapping the "#include <execinfo.h>" line in an
#ifdef __GLIBC__ would be more appropriate than special-casing for musl,
since musl is not the only environment that lacks execinfo.h. I suspect
this code would also fail to build on cygwin, for instance.
If there existed a __MUSL__ macro, the maintainers of software like this
would just use it instead of writing portable code. By refusing to
implement a __MUSL__ macro, musl is helping to urge projects in the
right direction.
khm
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.
