Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:55:48 -0500
From: M Farkas-Dyck <>
Subject: Re: __xmknod, __sysv_signal

On 30/04/2014, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> Sorry for taking a while to review this. I'd like to get it committed,
> but a few questions...

Ah, wasn't sure whether you meant to do this.

>> +int __xmknod(int ver, const char *path, mode_t mode, dev_t *dev)
>> +{
>> +	return mknod (path, mode, dev);
>> +}
> I think this should be *dev or something; mknod takes dev_t, not
> dev_t*.

Yes, that seems a typo in [1].

> Also I don't really like having this in src/stat, but we don't really
> have a dedicated place for ABI-compat junk yet...

I don't like it either.

What is musl's general policy on ABI compat? The FAQ says solely that
"musl aims for a degree of feature-compatibility", not what degree. Is
full binary compatibility with glibc the goal?

If we mean to include such, we ought to choose where to keep the code first.


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.