Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.