Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:44:22 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add basic sys/cdefs.h found on most unix

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 04:50:13PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:38:52 +0200
> Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <awg@...toolkit.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 10/21/2012 01:18 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:15:43 +0200
> > > Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@...toolkit.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Signed-off-by: Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@...toolkit.org>
> > >> ---
> > >>   include/sys/cdefs.h |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > >>   create mode 100644 include/sys/cdefs.h
> > > I'm pretty sure that the last three times sys/cdefs.h was proposed, it was rejected.
> 
> > Unfortunately many packages (wrongly?) use to rely on macros defined there,
> > sometimes indirectly via <features.h>.
> Yes, but that wasn't enough of a reason the last three times.
> 
> It isn't standard (-> not universal/portable), is very easily
> replaced, and even if it is added for compatability, it should not
> be used internally.

Not only that; all its macros are explicitly in the namespace reserved
for the implementation, because it's designed to be an internal part
of the implementation of libc's headers, not a public interface.

> I would say that the last point is the most important.

Yes. Even if we eventually do find a compelling reason to offer this
header, there's no reason it should be used internally. Using it is
just more expensive and obfuscated than writing things out explicitly.

Rich

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.