[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAN19L9Ec-scDcGzrOOg3cAvEUBjfSD3uhwXTt6eshYaX50U0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:02:03 -0300
From: Martin Galvan <omgalvan.86@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h
2018-03-15 15:53 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>:
> In any case it's not a bug in musl. The code is perfectly valid C. If
> the compiler is producing a warning for it, either ignore it or ask
> the compiler to stop.
Just because some code is valid C, it doesn't mean it's not buggy.
>> The compiler warnings aren't being wrongly produced. musl will indeed
>> perform a signed-to-unsigned conversion here.
>
> Because that's how the C language works.
Yes. And gcc has checks to try and make up for C's weak typing.
While your definition of "bug" is debatable, IMHO if a commonly used
option causes application builds to break due to some library, the
library has a usability issue. The issue is even bigger when we're
talking about something as core as the standard C library.
>> So whenever we find a bug on musl we should just stop all our
>> development until you've fixed the bug?
>
> No. As noted above, if you need to support systems that might have bug
> X, you write a test (configure-time or run-time as appropriate) to
> detect bug X and handle it.
Precisely, and __MUSL__ would be really useful for this.
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.
