Re: Is "memory.h" wanted?

[Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:37:10PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > I recently tried building OpenSSL, and it failed to build due to a
> > missing "memory.h".
<snip>
> > Which, IIRC, means a BSD-flavored/other legacy string.h
> > Is this header desired for compatability, or should code using it be considered 
> > non-conformant and patched?
> 
> Probably both, i.e. we should add it and OpenSSL should be patched. In
> the long term I'm thinking about adding #warning to all of the
> nonsensical legacy headers and wrong-location headers (missing sys/-
> prefix or incorrect sys/- prefix) to help track down and correct such
> errors in programs.
I had assumed the header wanted was a libc header; however, when I looked up memory.h, 
the recommended header to use was a *private* kernel header (not one of the cleaned headers). There was talk about removing the include from OpenSSL (which certainly should happen, considering the hackishness of this).
IIRC, sys/ is part of the linux-libc headers
> 
> > Also, have any SSL libraries (besides openssh internal) have been
> > verified to work with musl?
> 
> I have bitlbee and irssi both linked with OpenSSL and haven't had any
> problems with them, but I haven't tried all the features that depend
> on SSL. 
Since that means you built openssl, I'll try it again--once I've built a self-hosting system (bootstrap-linux, in this case)

-- 
Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>