Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:39:39 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:55:29PM -0300, dgutson . wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:44:05PM +0100, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > > > Is it possible to add to the features.h __MUSL__ definition? > > > > > > glibc can be identified by __GLIBC__, uclibc through __UCLIBC__ etc. > > > > Is this question in the FAQ yet? If not, it really should be. The > > answer is no, it won't be added, because it's a bug to assume a > > certain implementation has particular properties rather than testing. > > That is a beautiful theory in an ideal world, but in the real world, > > implementations have bugs, and sometimes we need to workaround these bugs. If there's an actual bug you need to work around, detect it. Hard-coding "musl is buggy" is not beneficial to us; rather it leads to broken hacks lingering long after the bug is fixed. > (e.g. the FD* issue reported by Martin Galvan). That's not a bug. It's compiler warnings being wrongly produced for a system header, probably because someone added -I/usr/include or similar (normally GCC suppresses these). The musl policy regarding not having a macro like __MUSL__ is doing exactly what it's intended to do: encouraging developers and package maintainers to come to us (or investigate on their own) and fix the underlying portability problems (and sometimes musl bugs) rather than writing hacks to a specific version of musl that will be wrong a few versions later. Rich
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.