[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220413225843.GY7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:58:43 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@...lim.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: *strerror_r() bug in musl
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> > > And yet, I'm supposed to check the GNU feature macros? So their
> > > defines are good? But musl not having the equivalent is good?
> >
> > If you're using __GLIBC__ to work around an intentional glibc
> > nonconformance issue, that's reasonable usage of it and part of the
> > way they intend for you to be able to use it.
>
> So you intend for me to use __GLIBC__, for something I'm not sure
> about, when __GLIBC__ is not part of your package or defined in your
> doc?
It's not part of our documentation because it has nothing to do with
musl. As far as I can tell, you're only perceiving it as being
"something about musl" because glibc is the frame of reference you're
used to.
> I'll stick to direct configure tests.
>
> > > Get your story straight please.
> >
> > I don't see where it's inconsistent.
> >
> > - Using standard macros provided by the implementation that describe
> > interfaces available: good.
>
> Except, musl does not provide any? Or did I miss something?
The macros from unistd.h declare conformance to the standards and
which option groups are provided.
There is a proposal for extending this system with information about
extensions that aren't standardized, that was discussed on the
libc-coord mailing list, but it never really moved forward.
> On second thought, don't bother, I'll stick to direct configure tests.
This is a choice I fully support.
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.
