[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910174328.GS1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:43:28 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Ed Maste <emaste@...ebsd.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
> > qsort_r was at first rejected because of the conflicting definitions
> > -- existence of same-named interfaces with different semantics or
> > signatures is one of the big criteria for exclusion of nonstandard
> > extensions in musl. However, from the FreeBSD side at least there
> > seems to be interest in dropping their version and agreeing upon a
> > standard aligned with glibc's version, for the sake of POSIX:
>
> If you want to see the current state of this in FreeBSD, we have a
> code review in progress in Phabricator at
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D17083. If POSIX standardizes on the glibc
> version I'm sure we'll follow.
Thanks for the update. It looks like we have a sort of 3- (N-?) way
deadlock:
A: POSIX adopts qsort_r with glibc signature
B: FreeBSD switches qsort_r to glibc signature
C: musl adds qsort_r with glibc signature
A seems kinda stalled and dependent on B and possibly others.
B seems dependent on A.
C seems dependent on A || B || some approximation of A. ;-)
Fortunately it looks like we're all on the same page about where it
should end up and all sides still want it to happen.
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.
