From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2938 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Landley Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: question: hard-coded file descriptors in stdin/stdout/stderr Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1363580542.15703.24@driftwood> References: <514689F3.5080805@eservices.virginia.edu> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363580564 4664 80.91.229.3 (18 Mar 2013 04:22:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:22:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2939-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Mar 18 05:23:09 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UHRbH-0001k0-Di for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:23:07 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 9546 invoked by uid 550); 18 Mar 2013 04:22:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 9533 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2013 04:22:44 -0000 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:subject:to:cc:in-reply-to:x-mailer:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=dgyGj8fsNkA+ewR6BwM8FwiiTj2XDPk+A3CIDv09muI=; b=D0k9vuxV7BdRzNh8LrZZuUanKnEJOJAM/4czZrW66EbkqlF263wcuKah/kwVzrjl+J fOsqC2hN+hu+iuXJ1lhedgZ0LcopjQAt+SI9s+aowhIkwxI+AXiosRUS5bdfkkn8lwB8 NAeqyJc6FMF2Bz1OP+YkgAEm1z3WQxsYodFUrOyHYxpaVcH6cqOfkJmLY+sRuaWKg43V RdiLwW1nym30vSFCEWUkCN0VKCPobh67lPyubeohUVr14KAuB+qfgDbt02sNqliUTDmw 8aQQQ2lf35eBgrD1+0T04aF5Xr7+4eJ3OljjNvXHHhb00+rQl2jZsL+F/FcD1E7K+eFe 9n0Q== X-Received: by 10.229.193.160 with SMTP id du32mr4152622qcb.82.1363580551814; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:22:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <514689F3.5080805@eservices.virginia.edu> (from zg7s@eservices.virginia.edu on Sun Mar 17 22:28:51 2013) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.11 Content-Disposition: inline X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxkXfvYPfxdveOmvW7g4mLXJkCT3nnZVjdh983y2/GwpXHuAAn3cPLRPbyC6WeIUzfwjQF Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2938 Archived-At: On 03/17/2013 10:28:51 PM, Zvi Gilboa wrote: > >> Doesn't mingw already exist? >=20 > Of course it does, but it does not allow one to compile unmodified =20 > posix code. >=20 >=20 > >> How on earth does licensing on WINDOWS matter, since the base OS =20 > is proprietary? So this is explicitly "provide free stuff to make =20 > paying money to Microsoft more appealing"? >=20 > My approach on that issue is apparently rather different. But as =20 > often > happens, the greatest resistance comes not from those who oppose =20 > one's goal, > but rather from those who share the same goal, yet differ in their =20 > vision as > to how it should be reached. My hope is that as my project evolves, =20 > you, > too, will become one of its supports. Oh no, I oppose your goal entirely. I think that a posix libc =20 attempting to support windows is a bad idea. My concern isn't that you'll succeed or fail either way, it's that in =20 trying to do it you'll mess up the nice clean Linux C library Rich has =20 made by forcing a bunch of non-posix assumptions on it. (I.E. fork it =20 all you like, that's merely useless, but pushing this stuff upstream =20 makes no sense to me and seems actively harmful.) This assumption that started this thread is a perfect example. The =20 posix-2008 stdin definition under system interfaces in the function =20 list explicitly says that stdin is 0, stdout is 1, and stderr is 2. So =20 musl relying on what posix said _is_ what you were objecting to. =20 Meanwhile Rich is saying that letting windows programs rely on posix is =20 the advantage of your approach. This seems like a direct conflict to me. It is of course Rich's call not mine. But I'm not following the logic =20 at all. Rob=