Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:53:58 -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 03:48:32PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote: > 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? In any case it's not a bug in musl. The code is perfectly valid C. If the compiler is producing a warning for it, either ignore it or ask the compiler to stop. > The compiler warnings aren't being wrongly produced. musl will indeed > perform a signed-to-unsigned conversion here. Because that's how the C language works. > > 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? No. As noted above, if you need to support systems that might have bug X, you write a test (configure-time or run-time as appropriate) to detect bug X and handle it. 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.