From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4936
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:21:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20140421082155.GC12324@port70.net>
References: <5353FDD0.6090903@midipix.org>
 <20140420203140.GA26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <53543E99.1020407@midipix.org>
 <20140421073347.GB12324@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: ger.gmane.org 1398068533 30188 80.91.229.3 (21 Apr 2014 08:22:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:22:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-4940-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Apr 21 10:22:08 2014
Return-path: <musl-return-4940-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
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 <musl-return-4940-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1Wc9UN-0004O1-LK
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:22:07 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 8096 invoked by uid 550); 21 Apr 2014 08:22:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 8088 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2014 08:22:07 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140421073347.GB12324@port70.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4936
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4936>

* Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> [2014-04-21 09:33:47 +0200]:
> yes they define posix_ prefixed symbols for internal use
> which are reserved names for the c implementation when
> any standard headers are included
> 
> the next posix standard defines posix_close so this is a
> real collision (and will be an issue with every conformant
> libc), but all the other posix_ symbols are wrong there too

it seems it was already reported and "fixed"
http://bugs.python.org/issue20594

the fix is broken though