From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2782 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Have different definitions of __pthread_tsd_main agree in size Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20130211134454.GR20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1360535367.23424.466.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211003158.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1360568420.23424.521.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211112237.GB6181@port70.net> <20130211120816.GC6181@port70.net> <1360587084.9132.83.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211130906.GE6181@port70.net> <1360589888.9132.104.camel@eris.loria.fr> 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 1360590307 21660 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2013 13:45:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:45:07 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2783-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Feb 11 14:45:29 2013 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 1U4thH-0001o3-6a for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:45:27 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 16373 invoked by uid 550); 11 Feb 2013 13:45:07 -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 16365 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2013 13:45:07 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1360589888.9132.104.camel@eris.loria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2782 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:38:08PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > there are posix requirements for environ so it must be weak > > i'm not sure about the alias though > > Anyhow the use of environ versus __environ was just not consistent > through the rest of musl. I have send another patch that should heal > that. The current intended usage is that __environ is used in ISO C functions and startup code that must not reference the name environ (since it's in the namespace reserved for the application), and POSIX and extension functions use environ. There's no reason the latter _need_ to use environ though; it was just more convenient and less implementation-specific. If you think there's a good reason to change it after reading this, let's discuss it. Rich