Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:33:47 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC * writeonce@...ipix.org <writeonce@...ipix.org> [2014-04-20 17:39:37 -0400]: > For the record: python's Modules/posixmodule.c has a static > implementation of posix_close that is incompatible with musl's. My yes they define posix_ prefixed symbols for internal use which are reserved names for the c implementation when any standard headers are included the next posix standard defines posix_close so this is a real collision (and will be an issue with every conformant libc), but all the other posix_ symbols are wrong there too > first take on that was to make python use musl's posix_close, which > resulted in a very subtle bug leading to a segmentation fault (not > to mention all of those lost hours...) Renaming the module's > posix_close to __posix_close solved the problem. The code that these functions have nothing to do with libc: they operate on python objects the symbols should be just renamed but your solution is wrong: the __ prefix is still in the reserved name space use s/posix_/pyposix_/ or similar
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.