Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:37:39 -0300 From: "dgutson ." <danielgutson@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 04:02:03PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote: > > 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. > > It's valid C that does exactly what it's intended to do. > > > >> 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. > > Perhaps this should be documented more explicitly, but there is no > guarantee that building with -Werror[=anything except warnings which > are constraint violations in C] will succeed, especially when GCC is > not honoring its usual promise not to produce warnings for code > expanded from macros from -isystem paths. I did just test and indeed > the warning is produced with gcc 6.3.0. > > > >> 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. > > Absolutely not. __MUSL__ would not tell you anything about whether bug > X is present. It would facilitate permanently assuming "musl has bug > X" because you observed bug X on musl at one point in the past. > Then turn __MUSL__ a number holding the version, as in cplusplus, etc, so people can do #if __MUSL__ < someversion #endif and it will be clear what happens and will solve the chronology issue. > > FWIW, mixing these two issues in one thread is not very productive. > The warning issue is separate and should be discussed on its own. > > Rich > -- Who’s got the sweetest disposition? One guess, that’s who? Who’d never, ever start an argument? Who never shows a bit of temperament? Who's never wrong but always right? Who'd never dream of starting a fight? Who get stuck with all the bad luck? Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.