From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1694 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: compatability: bits/syscall.h requires C99 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:34:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20120823123453.GO27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <12609.132.241.65.179.1345698455.squirrel@lavabit.com> <503622B4.8020506@barfooze.de> 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: ger.gmane.org 1345725202 27289 80.91.229.3 (23 Aug 2012 12:33:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:33:22 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1695-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Aug 23 14:33:23 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 1T4WbC-0003NW-6O for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:33:22 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 22448 invoked by uid 550); 23 Aug 2012 12:33:20 -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 22440 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2012 12:33:19 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <503622B4.8020506@barfooze.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1694 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:31:48PM +0200, John Spencer wrote: > On 08/23/2012 07:07 AM, idunham@lavabit.com wrote: > >I've been trying to get musl compatability patches for libuv merged > >upstream, and I have it building, but there's one sticking point: > >Upstream insists on using --std=c89 > > insisting on c89 sounds really stupid. Agreed. This does not improve compatibility; it breaks compatibility, especially if they happen to #include any third-party library header which is not _documented_ as being c89 compatible. (Even if it happens to work with -std=c89 now, unless it's documented that it does and always will, this might change in a future version.) > (and your musl patch is very ugly, if not entirely pointless) I had some potential ideas for other ways to do this. Anyway the discussion is not entirely pointless since we need to address "restrict" at some point too, and the mechanisms for doing so will be similar (but worse, since "restrict" is not a keyword by default in most compilers without -std=c99, unlike "inline" which works unless you intentionally enable strict-mode)... Rich