Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 09:48:02 -0500 From: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com> To: Balazs Kezes <rlblaster@...il.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl On 09/04/2018 02:41 AM, Balazs Kezes wrote: > On 2018-09-03 18:53 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: >> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=900 >> >> I'm not aware of any further progress on the issue, but if it becomes >> clear that POSIX is either going to standardize a version that agree >> with the GNU definition, or commit to not standardizing any that >> conflict, I think the level of consensus we have so far is sufficient >> to consider doing it. > > Ah, so to get this into musl, POSIX needs to get this first. Is there a way to > ping that issue tracker to resolve the issue? Doesn't look like random schmucks > like myself can ping it. I think I found eblake's email, let me CC him. > > Eric: Would it be possible to resolve the above POSIX feature request one way or > another so that C code can start using it more portably? I would be happy with > qsortr too, it's nice and short. (This thread's archive is at the > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/09/03/2 url.) I will attempt to raise the priority of bug 900 in order to get it onto the agenda of an upcoming Austing Group call (unfortunately, the Austin Group meeting once per week tends to get through fewer bugs on average than the rate at which bugs are being filed, so there have been rather long lags at resolving any particular bug). -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
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.