|
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfcV1zjQ0qSipM2PbL41Ap1E1mt3MqXQqhAp_X1_=BPjQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:26:26 +0100 From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] search: provide twalk_r() On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:16 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:43:42PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> > > > > Provide a variant of twalk() that allows callers to pass custom user > > data to it without resorting to global variables. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> > > Is there any precedent for this other than glibc, with matching > signature and behavior? Without that, it looks like it's subject to > the potential for conflicting definitions. > Not sure what you mean. GLibc IS the precedent. This function has only been around since glibc 2.30 (well, it's been 3 years) and requires _GNU_SOURCE. It's a relatively new function but without it, twalk() is quite useless. The background for this patch is: I have a low-level C library that I maintain for which I try to limit external dependencies and I used twalk_r() in the new version only to find out it doesn't build with musl. Bart
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.