[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stdioext on musl
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: stdioext on musl |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:10:52 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 |
On 06/17/2012 03:53 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> By "better interfaces" do you mean the
> 4 already-mentioned stdio extension functions, or something else?
Yes, I mean the functions that Bruno mentioned.
> I mean will it find them without needing a special macro like
> __MUSL__?
Having a symbol like __MUSL__ helps simplify gnulib's job, because
it needn't bother to use a heuristic like "if it has __stdio_read and
__stdio_write, it must be musl", but can simply use __MUSL__ directly.
If musl doesn't want to define __MUSL__, that's OK, gnulib can just
define __MUSL__ on its own using that heuristic, as in Bruno's patch.
If the heuristic goes wrong in some future platform, we'll fix it.
This is normal; it's no big deal. That being said, it's nicer for
gnulib if musl announced its presence with a symbol like __MUSL__.
Re: stdioext on musl, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
Re: stdioext on musl, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
Re: stdioext on musl, Rich Felker, 2012/06/17
Re: stdioext on musl, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
Re: stdioext on musl, Rich Felker, 2012/06/17
Re: stdioext on musl [was: gnulib portability issues], John Spencer, 2012/06/18
Re: stdioext on musl [was: gnulib portability issues], Paul Eggert, 2012/06/18
Re: stdioext on musl, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/19