Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:32:35 +0200
From: "" <>
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
>>> ( 
>>> 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 "" 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.