[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:46:24 +0100
From: Alastair Houghton <ahoughton@...le.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: __MUSL__ macro
On 7 Jul 2023, at 15:19, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> wrote:
>
> The counter-examples are not irrelevant. That is precisely the point.
> Nobody advocating for implementation identification macros has so far
> given a valid reason to do so. Every single one so far has turned out to
> be spurious. Well, I tell a lie, there is one case with a shadow of
> reason behind it: Header-only libraries.
And cross-compilation when you can’t detect runtime behaviour at configuration time.
Those two are actually what I care about, as it happens.
> I remain in staunch opposition to identification macros, ... [snip]
So I gather.
> None of this matters one bit, because Rich is God as far as musl is
> concerned, and he has not weighed in yet.
:-) I think you crossed over with him there.
It’s fine. There’s no point in arguing; we clearly aren’t going to agree here. I think it’s a shame because I think it makes things unnecessarily worse for everyone than they have to be (people will still try to detect musl, as in that Stack Overflow post, but they’ll do so in a less robust manner, and it makes supporting cross-compilation for musl targets and header only libraries that much harder).
Kind regards,
Alastair.
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.
