Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:23:38 +0200
From: Igmar Palsenberg <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches

>>>> Just nonsense aliases GNU uses...
>>>> Needed for ABI compatability.
>>> could we mark them as such? at least with a comment.
>>> I really like that musl is so readable. This patch adds some obfuscation that can simply be countered by marking it as "ok this is only here for reason X."
>> I would like to see those options behind a compile time option : It bloats musl with in many cases unneeded code. I test my compiles with musl, and I like it lean and mean.

> These are just aliases, not code. There's no bloat there.
> One of the advantages of musl is its LACK of configurability: If you have “musl”, you know what precisely you're getting.
> With valediction,
> - Gregor Richards

While I agree with the above, I still have a few objections : 

- We don't want glibc compatibility. We want a good libc.
- That we even need those aliases is usually a case of bad automake / autoconf / bad feature detection.

Why bloat code with stuff to provide glibc compatibility ?


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.