Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:58:43 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@...lim.com> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: *strerror_r() bug in musl On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote: > > > And yet, I'm supposed to check the GNU feature macros? So their > > > defines are good? But musl not having the equivalent is good? > > > > If you're using __GLIBC__ to work around an intentional glibc > > nonconformance issue, that's reasonable usage of it and part of the > > way they intend for you to be able to use it. > > So you intend for me to use __GLIBC__, for something I'm not sure > about, when __GLIBC__ is not part of your package or defined in your > doc? It's not part of our documentation because it has nothing to do with musl. As far as I can tell, you're only perceiving it as being "something about musl" because glibc is the frame of reference you're used to. > I'll stick to direct configure tests. > > > > Get your story straight please. > > > > I don't see where it's inconsistent. > > > > - Using standard macros provided by the implementation that describe > > interfaces available: good. > > Except, musl does not provide any? Or did I miss something? The macros from unistd.h declare conformance to the standards and which option groups are provided. There is a proposal for extending this system with information about extensions that aren't standardized, that was discussed on the libc-coord mailing list, but it never really moved forward. > On second thought, don't bother, I'll stick to direct configure tests. This is a choice I fully support.
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.