[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:59:36 +0530
From: Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@...rmmq.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: What would make musl 1.2?
Is there any possibility of adding in the ucontext.h functions? I know
they're deprecated, but they're still widely used - particularly by go for
goroutines, IIRC. I realise there are problems correctly implementing the
*_r variants, but a well-written, modern and efficient implementation would
be a big win.
On 13 February 2015 at 13:16, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> We're far enough along in the 1.1.x series now that I'd like to start
> thinking about what milestones might justify calling a release 1.2.0.
>
> Looking at the Open Issues and Roadmap on the wiki, the big things
> musl could gain in the near future look to be:
>
> - Finishing up all the loose ends on locale and multilingual support:
> IDN, message translations, iconv improvements, collation, and
> possibly the byte-based C locale.
>
> - Hardening/security features.
>
> - C++11 non-POD TLS.
>
> - Alternate user/group db backends (hopefully in upcoming 1.1.7).
>
> Any or all of these could become part of the wishlist for 1.2.
>
> Aside from those big functionality areas though, I think archs/porting
> might be one of the most important things to think about. Supporting
> aarch64 is definitely important in the near future, and it could be a
> big publicity boost. So could getting coverage for the remaining archs
> uClibc has that musl doesn't, or at least the ones of modern interest.
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Rich
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
