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.