Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:56 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Cc:, Isaac Dunham <>,
	Paul Eggert <>, Reuben Thomas <>
Subject: Re: Re: musl bugs found through gnulib

Some updates...

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:49:44AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> There is a recipe, in <>,
> that explains how to use gnulib to check a libc against bugs. When I apply
> this to musl-0.9.1, I get this list of problems:
> Replacements of *printf, because of
> [...]
>   checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions... no

No idea. Copying out the test and running it directly, it passes just
fine for me. Maybe gnulib has already replaced printf with its own
malloc-using version by the time it gets to this test??

> Replacement of fdopen, because of
>   checking whether fdopen sets errno... no

There was one bug here (failure to set errno when mode string was
invalid) but I don't think that's the case gnulib was testing for. It
seems gnulib wants an error for the "may fail" when the fd is invalid.

> Replacement of futimens, because of
>   checking whether futimens works... no

gnulib always forces this test to fail if __linux__ is defined.


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.