[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:27:52 +0200
From: "Arvid E. Picciani" <aep@...s.org>
To: <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:33:31 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> I've seen lots of code who use internal glibc functions / data
> structures. We want to prevent them from being used, that's why I
> personally have a problem with adding code like this. Unless it
> actually serves a real use.
That was sort of the point of making it an alias, i think.
Code that uses it still doesn't compile, but if it was compiled with
gnulibc headers it at least links against musl.
This satisfies both requirements of "musl should encourage standards
compliance" and "musl should be able to run nvidia drivers"
I just want it to also satisfy "musl code should serve as reference
implementation of a standards compliant libc", which it doesnt
if gnu compatibility code is mixed in indifferent.
--
Arvid E. Picciani
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.
