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 23:17:40 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: __xmknod, __sysv_signal

On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:55:48AM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> 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?

While I don't think it's spelled out anywhere, the hope is to make it
so any strictly conforming POSIX program build against glibc also
works with musl dropped in. Programs using extensions that musl also
provides should work too. Programs using glibc features that musl does
not provide, or depending on glibc bugs, are not intended to be

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

Similar things are scattered here and there; see the junk in


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.