Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:17:58 +0100 From: Shiz <hi@...z.me> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question > On 23 Mar 2016, at 14:28, Kurt H Maier <khm@....org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sirgio 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 Alternatively, a better approach would be the detection of <execinfo.h>’s existence by something like ./configure and defining a HAVE_EXECINFO_H macro as a result that the file can use. That way you’re not cluttering the source files with platform-specific information. - Shiz Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
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.