[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3040ab1-e202-31d0-4f0e-42721a363c90@mirbsd.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 03:57:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Prototypes without implementations
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> I'd rather have libcs omit stub implementations entirely, so that
> applications can test for functionality without having to run anything.
> Stub implementations make tests and integration of replacement
Fully agreed. It’s easy to make a compile+link test; my autoconf
replacement depends on it (and does that right) but runtime is a
whole other issue.
I don’t even mind about headers declaring functions that aren’t
there because only a fool tool would look at headers only… though
omitting them when it’s easy to know (e.g. via cpp predefs) it’s
not there is of course better.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing
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.
