Re: gcc segfault at src/mman/mlockall.c

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:43:33PM +0200, Jens Staal wrote:
> > > obase-musl still lacks a lot due to many legacy syscalls musl probably
> > > won't implement.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org
> > 
> > Could libbsd help with those?
> 
> Is it really worth adding on more and more cruft just to get a base
> system working?  In my opinion it would be better to flesh out sbase[1]
> or something like it.  Requiring a compatibility shim for your core
> utilities sounds like a bad day waiting to happen.

If there are really _syscalls_ not implemented, I'd be interested in
knowing what they are. There's really no cost to adding syscall
wrappers. If it's a matter of library functions though, then yes, I'd
agree. If using obase is desirable, it would be best to patch out the
non-portable stuff in obase, or if that's too difficult, use libbsd
(hopefully an improved version; in its current form, it seems very
broken and like gnulib has a lot of #error in the #else cases).

By the way, sbase in its current form is not much of an option. As far
as I can tell, the only way its tools "suck less" is in the area of
bloat; in the area of actually working correctly, they leave A LOT to
be desired. For example, at a first glance, grep lacks support for
multiple regexes (either on the command line with -e or
newline-separated, or from a file with -f). This kind of
non-conformance will badly break all sorts of shell scripts, including
possibly configure scripts (thus making it impossible to build any
software).

There is also my noXCUse package, which aims at complete conformance
in all commands implemented, but not many commands are implemented
yet.

Rich