From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1184 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs Subject: Re: Re: musl bugs found through gnulib Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20120619001156.GJ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120609230541.47eac2de@newbook> <4FD55156.7050302@cs.ucla.edu> <20120611182202.1ee4d019@newbook> <12545931.v3ALTEUUx8@linuix> 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 1340064978 20773 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2012 00:16:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org, Isaac Dunham , Paul Eggert , Reuben Thomas To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1185-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jun 19 02:16:14 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 1Sgm79-0007TQ-4V for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:16:11 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32175 invoked by uid 550); 19 Jun 2012 00:16:10 -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 32160 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2012 00:16:10 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12545931.v3ALTEUUx8@linuix> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1184 gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs:31033 Archived-At: Some updates... On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:49:44AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > There is a recipe, in , > that explains how to use gnulib to check a libc against bugs. When I apply > this to musl-0.9.1, I get this list of problems: > > Replacements of *printf, because of > [...] > checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions... no No idea. Copying out the test and running it directly, it passes just fine for me. Maybe gnulib has already replaced printf with its own malloc-using version by the time it gets to this test?? > Replacement of fdopen, because of > checking whether fdopen sets errno... no There was one bug here (failure to set errno when mode string was invalid) but I don't think that's the case gnulib was testing for. It seems gnulib wants an error for the "may fail" when the fd is invalid. > Replacement of futimens, because of > checking whether futimens works... no gnulib always forces this test to fail if __linux__ is defined. Rich