[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 23:39:59 +0200
From: "Bob B." <bob66@....com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: dl_iterate_phdr() behaves differently on musl and glibc
> Is there a reason musl's behavior is problematic here? Even without
> the ambiguity I'd be hesitant to change it since programs may be
> relying on it.
Looking around I found that it caused confusion with libwhich[0] (a program like `which` for dynamic libraries).
There's an issue opened[1] about it working differently on musl then it does on other systems.
But I wonder if it causes any problems...
Looking at the code, it looks like Apple systems do the same thing as musl and they treated it individually by skipping the first program on the report (itself)[2]
Might be worth checking what other systems do (BSDs especially I think) before making the decision.
A clarification on POSIX should also take place. Is that a too bureaucratic process?
[0] https://github.com/vtjnash/libwhich
[1] https://github.com/vtjnash/libwhich/issues/6
[2] https://github.com/vtjnash/libwhich/blob/master/libwhich.c#L175
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.
