Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:32:35 +0200 From: "gs@...3.at" <gs@...3.at> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Help assessing status of musl using a better posix list now, as recommended by nsz. there are a few false positives, namely macros. but afaik they can be counted on two hands. > ok, tweaked it a bit more >> >> see attached perl script and output. >> i recommend you rerun it since i didnt have the most recent musl >> version installed. >> >> On 05/29/2011 01:41 AM, Rich Felker wrote: >>> Apologies for the somewhat-slower progress on musl lately. The past >>> few weeks I've had a good bit less contiguous time to devote to it. >>> One thing that would help me make better use of my time is if I had a >>> good list of the remaining areas of functionality that musl is >>> missing, so I could use smaller blocks of time to write code that's >>> simple and largely independent of everything else. >>> >>> Would anyone be willing to go through a list of symbols from musl, >>> comparing it to the list of functions in the POSIX standard >>> (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/contents.html) >>> >>> and break it down into a list of functions and some categories of >>> functionality? For the most part anything in non-essential option >>> groups could be omitted or put in a separate list to address later. >>> >>> Rich >>> >> > Download attachment "musl-syms.pl" of type "application/x-perl" (1019 bytes) View attachment "musl-diff.txt" of type "text/plain" (4782 bytes) View attachment "posix-syms.txt" of type "text/plain" (12707 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.