Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:02:49 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: toybox@...ts.landley.net Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, enh <enh@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [Toybox] Android support * enh <enhatgoogle.com> [2014-11-21 15:40:47 -0800]: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote: > > Have you seen musl-libc.org? It's a very nice MIT-licensed libc (written > > from scratch in the past ~4 years) that you might be able to lift code > > like that from. > > we've looked at some pieces of that, but it's seemed pretty buggy and > definitely lacking in tests. at the moment most of our portable stuff i'm forwarding this to the musl list, it would be nice if you could tell what parts looked pretty buggy in musl musl is often tested with libc-test (and some other tests for specific parts) and i know it's lacking but i wonder what parts you think would definitely need more tests > comes from OpenBSD and most of our Linux-specific stuff is stuck with > annoying ABI constraints. plus we have a few extra architectures we > need to worry about. > > that said, i do suspect our most lasting contribution to the c library > state of the art will be our unit tests... are you talking about these tests: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/tests/ it does not seem more extensive than libc-test to me.. when i looked at other libc tests previously i quickly dismissed bionic tests because they relied on the google test framework (and thus c++), but i will take a second look if you think it adequatly tests posix apis (as opposed to bionic specific behaviour)
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.