From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5604 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: C11 threads Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:25:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20140725222542.GF4038@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1406282437.6438.34.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20140725104056.GO9928@port70.net> <1406286404.6438.38.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20140725130438.GA10402@port70.net> <20140725161449.GD4038@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1406325546.6438.83.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 1406327164 23562 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2014 22:26:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:26:04 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5609-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jul 26 00:25:56 2014 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 1XAnw3-0002gF-6l for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:25:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 19596 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2014 22:25:54 -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 19585 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2014 22:25:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1406325546.6438.83.camel@eris.loria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5604 Archived-At: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:59:06PM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > > the musl math library currently defines distinct long double > > > functions even if long double and double have the same > > > representation, they could be weak aliases if the standard > > > allows this.. > > > > Indeed. If this issue is resolved to allow it, I think we should make > > this change and remove some otherwise-useless bloat. > > If you are thinking in that direction, we definitively shouldn't use > trivial wrapper functions for the C11 functions. In all cases where > there is a trivial shift in the interface (such as the void return) I > would stay with the macro, and provide the additional symbol only for > the rare cases that someone asks for the address. I don't want macros expanding to __-prefixed pthread names. This leaks implementation internals into the ABI of binaries linked to musl and makes it difficult or impossible to change those internals. glibc made this choice in a lot of places (e.g. __strtol_internal, __ctype*, ...) and it's one of the things that I (and many of our community members) don't like about glibc. Rich