Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:39:50 +0000 From: Vasileios Kalintiris <Vasileios.Kalintiris@...tec.com> To: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Define and use the __ptrace_request enumeration type in ptrace. Hi Rich, Thank you for taking the time to look into this. > Is there a particular problem you're trying to solve here? I tried to compile LLDB with musl and I found two places where the __ptrace_request type is being used: http://reviews.llvm.org/diffusion/L/browse/lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.cpp;248212$3161 > Generally enum is avoided in musl unless it's mandated as part of an > interface definition. I based my patch on the definition provided by ptrace(2) on my Linux distro, thinking that this is the "correct" function prototype that we should provide. > As written, I think the patch would also be a regression that would break > apps which test for header/library support of a particular PTRACE_* command > using #ifdef. I do understand your concerns, I suppose that fixing this from the LLDB side will solve the mis-compilation problem and will keep us from introducing a regression to other apps from musl. Out of curiosity, what is the general implementation choice in this case in other C libraries? I'm asking because discovering GLIBC and handing it as a special case would be easy through the __GLIBC__ macro. However, musl doesn't provide any such macro (and other C libraries probably). Thanks, Vasileios
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.