|
Message-ID: <2bb1f0ce-d210-5f5f-2f8a-dff1b5cfc736@evolvis.org> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:08:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@...lvis.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Prototypes without implementations On Sat, 26 Oct 2024, Markus Wichmann wrote: >See above. Failing with ENOSYS and no side effects is a perfectly >conforming implementation of most POSIX functions. Insisting on this ivory tower opinion will just make people mark your software as buggy and move on. For most functions, it’s reasonable to check for presence, and if so, enable codepaths that do: if (pselect(…) == -1) { if (errno == EINTR) { // special handling } err(1, "pselect"); } The vast majority of software, OSS and not, works this way. If a basic function in a standard is there it better function. Linux’ getrandom() is an offensive exception to that and better stay the only one. bye, //mirabilos -- 22:20⎜<asarch> The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master 22:21⎜<asarch> And the distance between the craziness and geniality is only measured by the success 18:35⎜<asarch> "Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent
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.