[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 12:13:34 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Leah Neukirchen <leah@...u.org>
Cc: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
Balazs Kezes <rlblaster@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:45:50PM +0200, Leah Neukirchen wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> writes:
>
> > Thanks. Final acceptance into POSIX isn't completely mandatory for us
> > to adopt it, but I'd at least want to see that FreeBSD (others would
> > be great too) is moving forward with converting over to the
> > glibc/proposed-POSIX signature so the risk of this devolving into a
> > deadlock is in the past.
>
> AFAICS, macOS and DragonFlyBSD also use the FreeBSD signature.
> OpenBSD never implemented qsort_r; NetBSD proposed to implemement the
> glibc signature in 2013, but this didn't seem to be merged.
Yes, I'm aware there are a couple others and at least one (OSX) is
probably going to be hard to get to change. I'm pretty okay with that
as long as there is good consensus among the implementations that
actually care about portability and consensus. OSX has so many serious
conformance bugs, and is stuck so far in the past (17 years -- POSIX
2001, with problems even conforming to that), that it's like MSVCRT;
they really don't have standing to push their way on this.
Rich
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.
