Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:25:42 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: C11 threads On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:59:06PM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > > the musl math library currently defines distinct long double > > > functions even if long double and double have the same > > > representation, they could be weak aliases if the standard > > > allows this.. > > > > Indeed. If this issue is resolved to allow it, I think we should make > > this change and remove some otherwise-useless bloat. > > If you are thinking in that direction, we definitively shouldn't use > trivial wrapper functions for the C11 functions. In all cases where > there is a trivial shift in the interface (such as the void return) I > would stay with the macro, and provide the additional symbol only for > the rare cases that someone asks for the address. I don't want macros expanding to __-prefixed pthread names. This leaks implementation internals into the ABI of binaries linked to musl and makes it difficult or impossible to change those internals. glibc made this choice in a lot of places (e.g. __strtol_internal, __ctype*, ...) and it's one of the things that I (and many of our community members) don't like about glibc. Rich
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.