Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:43:28 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@...ebsd.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > > qsort_r was at first rejected because of the conflicting definitions > > -- existence of same-named interfaces with different semantics or > > signatures is one of the big criteria for exclusion of nonstandard > > extensions in musl. However, from the FreeBSD side at least there > > seems to be interest in dropping their version and agreeing upon a > > standard aligned with glibc's version, for the sake of POSIX: > > If you want to see the current state of this in FreeBSD, we have a > code review in progress in Phabricator at > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D17083. If POSIX standardizes on the glibc > version I'm sure we'll follow. Thanks for the update. It looks like we have a sort of 3- (N-?) way deadlock: A: POSIX adopts qsort_r with glibc signature B: FreeBSD switches qsort_r to glibc signature C: musl adds qsort_r with glibc signature A seems kinda stalled and dependent on B and possibly others. B seems dependent on A. C seems dependent on A || B || some approximation of A. ;-) Fortunately it looks like we're all on the same page about where it should end up and all sides still want it to happen. 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.