Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:28:40 -0400 From: Kurt H Maier <khm@....org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sérgio Marques wrote: > > How are we expected to solve this kind of problem if not by using the > __MUSL__ macro? The recommended solution is to fix the code to be portable, instead of installing yet another special-case workaround. In this case, wrapping the "#include <execinfo.h>" line in an #ifdef __GLIBC__ would be more appropriate than special-casing for musl, since musl is not the only environment that lacks execinfo.h. I suspect this code would also fail to build on cygwin, for instance. If there existed a __MUSL__ macro, the maintainers of software like this would just use it instead of writing portable code. By refusing to implement a __MUSL__ macro, musl is helping to urge projects in the right direction. khm
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.