[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
