Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:23:38 +0200 From: Igmar Palsenberg <musl@...senberg.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com 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 ? Igmar
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.