Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:16:09 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:04:00PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Reuben Thomas <rrt@...d.org> [2012-06-08 11:34:04 +0100]: > > I contacted the gnulib maintainers, one of whom replied: > > > > "IIRC, gnulib's freadahead use is caused by musl's printf not being > > posix compliant, causing gnulib to pull in its printf replacement, > > which doesn't work on musl." > > what does freadahead have to do with printf? > that sounds weird.. I agree. Even if there is a bug in musl causing this stuff to be pulled in, there seems to be a bug in gnulib as well; why should a function that pertains only to reading get pulled in by a replacement for a function that only does writing? > > It would be nice to sort this out: either musl's printf is not > > POSIX-compliant, or gnulib's detection of POSIX-compliance is buggy. > > so far i haven't seen much code from gnulib that was *not* buggy Indeed. If nothing else, almost all of it is non-thread-safe... Rich
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.