Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:02:03 -0300
From: Martin Galvan <>
Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h

2018-03-15 15:53 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker <>:
> 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.