From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2423 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Revised 1.0 wishlist Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 23:17:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20121208041707.GT20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20121204235937.GA23989@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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 1354940242 13344 80.91.229.3 (8 Dec 2012 04:17:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 04:17:22 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2424-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Dec 08 05:17:36 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 1ThBr5-0000UE-CT for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 05:17:35 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 10061 invoked by uid 550); 8 Dec 2012 04:17:21 -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 10050 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2012 04:17:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121204235937.GA23989@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2423 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:59:37PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > The following wishlist is a draft. I may have missed some items, and > the compatibility goals and testing goals are new ideas subject to > discussion. One further goal I'd like to add is increasing the level of ABI stability. If it seems feasible to match the C++ ABI with glibc, I think we should go ahead and do that before 1.0 rather than after (where we would break our own C++ ABI). That means using matching struct tags for structures that might be involved as arguments in C++ functions, dealing with some types that are defined differently (like glibc using long instead of a pointer type for pthread_t), etc. In really ugly cases like pthread_t, I think we could put the bad definition for compatibility under #ifdef __cplusplus so that C programs get the benefits of musl's superior definition. Thoughts on this? Anybody up for auditing the differences, either fully or at least partially to see if aligning them is feasible? The reason I'm interested in this is that I suspect a decent portion of the binaryware apps/libs we might want to support may be written in C++ rather than C. Rich