[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200920205831.jb2jbkzfvvb2mws4@gentoo-zen2700x>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:58:31 +0200
From: Hadrien Lacour <hadrien.lacour@...teo.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: OS detection wrong on Alpine Linux 3.10
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:21:48PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Rich,
>
> POSIX — like many other standard — allows different implementations to
> behave differently. For example, iconv_open() and setlocale() behave
> differently in different POSIX-compliant libc implementations. This is
> OK. There is nothing wrong with it on either side.
>
> Unit tests [1] need to take into account the actual behaviour of the
> software. It is normal that a unit test's core function produces a
> different result with musl than with glibc. The "expected outcome"
> part of the unit test, in this case, needs to be different. This is
> an actual, practical need to know whether the config triple ends in
> linux-gnu vs. linux-musl.
>
> > There is one kinda legitimate purpose for detecting specifically musl:
>
> It is not your role to tell us which code we write is "legitimate" and
> which code is not. I am a grown-up programmer.
>
> Bruno
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing
>
Sorry to waltz in like this but isn't it bad practice in general to rely on
implementation-defined behaviours?
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.
