Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:02:03 -0300 From: Martin Galvan <omgalvan.86@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h 2018-03-15 15:53 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: > 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. Just because some code is valid C, it doesn't mean it's not buggy. >> 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. Yes. And gcc has checks to try and make up for C's weak typing. While your definition of "bug" is debatable, IMHO if a commonly used option causes application builds to break due to some library, the library has a usability issue. The issue is even bigger when we're talking about something as core as the standard C library. >> 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. Precisely, and __MUSL__ would be really useful for this.
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.