Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:48:32 -0300 From: Martin Galvan <omgalvan.86@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h 2018-03-15 15:39 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: >> (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). I'm certain we didn't add -I/usr/include or something similar. Could you test this yourself to confirm it's not a bug? The compiler warnings aren't being wrongly produced. musl will indeed perform a signed-to-unsigned conversion here. > 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. So whenever we find a bug on musl we should just stop all our development until you've fixed the bug?
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.