[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAN19L9H=fj2e6S53URq3Gw7yBCi9ZC8Z_76aRSuoMgJADk1G7w@mail.gmail.com>
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.
