From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1006 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:16:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20120608141609.GM163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120608140400.GA17860@port70.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339165246 26756 80.91.229.3 (8 Jun 2012 14:20:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:20:46 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1007-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jun 08 16:20:45 2012 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 1Sd03R-00021R-0V for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:20:45 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10172 invoked by uid 550); 8 Jun 2012 14:20:45 -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 10164 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2012 14:20:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120608140400.GA17860@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1006 Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:04:00PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Reuben Thomas [2012-06-08 11:34:04 +0100]: > > I contacted the gnulib maintainers, one of whom replied: > > > > "IIRC, gnulib's freadahead use is caused by musl's printf not being > > posix compliant, causing gnulib to pull in its printf replacement, > > which doesn't work on musl." > > what does freadahead have to do with printf? > that sounds weird.. I agree. Even if there is a bug in musl causing this stuff to be pulled in, there seems to be a bug in gnulib as well; why should a function that pertains only to reading get pulled in by a replacement for a function that only does writing? > > It would be nice to sort this out: either musl's printf is not > > POSIX-compliant, or gnulib's detection of POSIX-compliance is buggy. > > so far i haven't seen much code from gnulib that was *not* buggy Indeed. If nothing else, almost all of it is non-thread-safe... Rich