Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:56 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: bug-gnulib@....org, Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Reuben Thomas <rrt@...d.org> 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 <http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Testing/Gnulib>, > 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. 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.