[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:17:58 +0100
From: Shiz <hi@...z.me>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question
> On 23 Mar 2016, at 14:28, Kurt H Maier <khm@....org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sirgio Marques wrote:
>>
>> How are we expected to solve this kind of problem if not by using the
>> __MUSL__ macro?
>
> The recommended solution is to fix the code to be portable, instead of
> installing yet another special-case workaround.
>
> In this case, wrapping the "#include <execinfo.h>" line in an
> #ifdef __GLIBC__ would be more appropriate than special-casing for musl,
> since musl is not the only environment that lacks execinfo.h. I suspect
> this code would also fail to build on cygwin, for instance.
>
> If there existed a __MUSL__ macro, the maintainers of software like this
> would just use it instead of writing portable code. By refusing to
> implement a __MUSL__ macro, musl is helping to urge projects in the
> right direction.
>
> khm
Alternatively, a better approach would be the detection of <execinfo.h>’s
existence by something like ./configure and defining a HAVE_EXECINFO_H macro
as a result that the file can use. That way you’re not cluttering the source
files with platform-specific information.
- Shiz
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
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.
